Bernie Sanders Is Most Likely Candidate To Take On Trump In 2020

Not only is Bernie Sanders, Vermont Senator and former contender for the Democratic nomination, the most popular politician in America, but according to one recent poll, he’s seen as the most likely candidate to win the Democratic nomination to take on Trump in 2020.

Bernie Sanders

Since Hillary Clinton’s defeat, no clear leader has emerged to guide the Democratic party, which means the primary for the 2020 race will probably be hotly contested.

Data courtesy of PredictIt

The data are courtesy of PredictIt, which translates prediction market data into US cents, with the highest price signaling the most likely outcome at a given time. Sanders, who challenged Clinton for the nomination in 2016, is seen as the most likely nominee at 21 cents a share. California senator Kamala Harris is next at 17 cents, followed by Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren at 15 cents.

Three of the top-five potential candidates are women: New York senator Kirsten Gillibrand comes in fourth at 14 cents, just ahead of former vice president Joe Biden at 13 cents.

For what its worth, Sanders hasn’t ruled out running again in 2020 (though he’d be in his late 70s by then). This fall, he continued to fight for socialized medicine by releasing a bill calling for Medicare for all. The self-described Democratic Socialist has long advocated for a single payer health care system.

Tags

Comments

Escrava Isaura Dame Ednas Possum Dec 30, 2017 2:48 AM Permalink

Let me show you how an indoctrination system works.

At the first comment, Keyser is the indoctrinated, meaning that accepts a set of beliefs and propaganda uncritically.

At the second comment, Pathak, is the opposite.

Keyser: Goodbye capitalism, hello socialism...

 

Siddharth Pathak: Forget about North Korea, and America. Let's talk about a Southern Indian province called Kerala, shall we?
It is one of the most densely populated areas in the country, but also its most developed. It leads the country in literacy rate which stands at 93%, lowest maternal mortality rate which is 1.3/1000. Life expectancy is at 75 years, which is again the highest in the country and is in the range of the developed world (for eg. USA has a life expectancy is 77 years), and leads the country in healthcare, and is the only state in the country that has a positive sex ratio (meaning more women than men). It has one of the least crime rates in the country as well.
Kerala is without a doubt one one of the most developed places in the Subcontinent.
But you know what the surprising thing is?
Out of the 58 years since the state's political existence, the Communist Party of India (yes India has Communist parties fielding for elections and no they haven't staged any "revolutions") has been in power for 30 years - slightly more than half.
Kerala has thrived and this has occurred despite it being ruled for 30 years by a Communistic entity. In fact it was the same Communist party that engineered the massive uptick in human development by implementing a set of policies in 1970s that are now called collectively as the Kerala model, pioneered by a left oriented socialist economist, K. N Raj. His views and policies have gone on to influence the creation of the Human Development Index (HDI) by Amartya Sen and Mahbub ul Haq. HDI is a far better way to compare distinct economies and countries in terms of development. It certainly is better than that arbitrary notion of "free markets".
I think the example of Kerala should prove conclusively of just how much of a parochial and meaningless that mainstream view is; that somehow socialistic societies are incapable of development. They are as capable as any other society based on any form of economic system.
There is an entire living, breathing section of the world out there that functions completely different from what the Chicago school economists would call ideal and preferable, and yet they keep managing to create huge amounts of development. Looking at some of the answers here, and elsewhere on Quora, and also at some of the comments by neoclassical economists themselves, I think it would be suffice to say that most of the critics of economic systems other than capitalism have absolutely no clue about what they are supposed to criticizing.
Look at beyond the stupid hyperbole of labels that media and a certain bunch of economists keep throwing around, and don't restrict yourself to absolute comparisons of economic systems, because it is meaningless.
EDIT- I realize that some of the readers might mistake this as a proof of the fact I am a supporter of the CPI or anyone of the different flavors of political communist models. I most certainly am not. However neither am I a "fan" of capitalism, socialism or anything. My personal belief is not to restrict myself into narrow mental constructs of labels. However my point here in my answer is to forcefully argue against this remnant of the Cold War which saw senseless comparisons of two different economic systems. No economic system is better or worse than other because economies are a living embodiment of human societies, which are extremely complex and thus it is nothing but hubris on our part when we try to come up with some parochial view about which one is better. Socialistic societies are equally capable of development, as are capitalistic societies. Both have their failures and advantages. I didn't talk about capitalism, because almost every person has heard the benefits of the system (thanks to those who treat it like a religion), but socialism is something which still remains taboo. Hence this answer was to give a small example to show how conventional models about socialism are so wrong.

 

In reply to by Dame Ednas Possum

Bollixed Slipstream Dec 30, 2017 6:03 AM Permalink

From Wiki:

Kerala's economy depends on emigrants working in foreign countries, mainly in Arab states of the Persian Gulf, and remittances annually contribute more than a fifth of GSDP.[177] The state witnessed significant emigration during the Gulf Boom of the 1970s and early 1980s. In 2008, the Persian Gulf countries together had a Keralite population of more than 2.5 million, who sent home annually a sum of US$6.81 billion, which is the highest among Indian states and more than 15.13% of remittances to India in 2008.[178] In 2012, Kerala still received the highest remittances of all states: US$11.3 billion, which was nearly 16% of the US$71 billion remittances to the country.[179] In 2015, NRI deposits in Kerala have soared to over ₹1 lakh crore (US$16 billion), amounting to one-sixth of all the money deposited in NRI accounts, which comes to about ₹7 lakh crore (US$110 billion).[180] However, a study commissioned by the Kerala State Planning Board, suggested that the state look for other reliable sources of income, instead of relying on remittances to finance its expenditure.

In reply to by Slipstream

Escrava Isaura Bollixed Dec 30, 2017 6:47 AM Permalink

Thanks.

Now let’s assume that the numbers you posted and Pathak’s social structures interpretations of Kerala are correct.

So that goes to a critical point that can’t sink in within the conservatives: Window guidance, meaning there’s always some money come into that sector/locality/gdp, because it must too.

Even if Kerala was to have a conservative ‘free market nonsense’ that market will always need additional money to function, period……Unless Kerala was to have a population decline.  

 

In reply to by Bollixed

meterman Bollixed Dec 31, 2017 9:40 AM Permalink

To be clear - Are you stating that emigrants working in CAPITOLIST economies produce the majority of funds for their SOCIALIST economy? Well - what a surprise. So that is the way you can keep a Socialist economy afloat. 

Quick - Tell Venezuela.  

In reply to by Bollixed

Escrava Isaura nmewn Dec 30, 2017 8:53 AM Permalink

Because working for the Arab Jews, Saudi Arabia, and/or the Asia Jews, Japan, they get a better pay.

And that money is part of the window-guidance for that region. These offshore workers function very much like a central bank ‘third party’ for that region.

Window-guidance, meaning direct investment by the central banks into localities boosts their economies and living standards.

Alone they can’t grow, unless they print their own money.

Or, they have a different social structure that doesn’t rely on money.

  

In reply to by nmewn

nmewn Escrava Isaura Dec 30, 2017 9:43 AM Permalink

They have synagogues in Saudi Arabia do they?...lol...well thats certainly nuuuz to me.

Would it not be fairer Escrava to say, these Indian workers refuse to accept their families lot in life in having to live in this Marxist paradise you (by way of your chosen author) have described? 

I mean, we can assume their overseas wages are not going to The Communist Party of India or the misnamed Left Democratic Front of Kerala (lol). The remittances go to their families.

So here we have a situation where a Marxist administration profits (to the tune of 20%) from an individuals desire for a higher standard of living for themselves and their families than the one the Marxist administration can provide by the redistribution of local labor and profit.

Seems parasitical to me and this is held up by leftist authors who think this is something to aspire to. 

In reply to by Escrava Isaura

ssnova Escrava Isaura Dec 30, 2017 11:51 AM Permalink

You know what else Kerala has that sets it a part from the vast majority of India?  It's majority Christian, and their values reflect to an extent.

Just remember, Bernie and Hilary are just like Hitler, they both want to take away your freedoms and rights to bare arms in order to leave your money, decisions, power, and free will to mighty gubment'.  They'll use fake proganda to brainwash the sheeple too. I loathe how people forgot the "hitlery" meme already, and now try to associate Trump with Hitler because he's a white male, Trump is an American(which used to mean something...our constitution they gave us rights, and freedoms, you're "allowed" to go out there and make something of yourself, not be supressed and told what to do, etc.), not some socialist nut like Hitler and Bernie.

In reply to by Escrava Isaura

istt Escrava Isaura Dec 30, 2017 12:10 PM Permalink

I think what you miss Escrava is capitalism has been severely marginalized and hindered in the US. If it were allowed to operate unfettered it would blow Kerala away. It is already superior, even with its hands tied behind its back due to socialist Congressmen.

 

In an ideal society everyone would work and be productive but since we don't live in an ideal society we have to do the next best thing. Let the producers excel and use their discretion to take care of the unproductive members of society. The lower levels of society would do much better, not relying on welfare. Most would find a job and TRY to provide for their family. Those who truly could not work would be helped by the goodness inherent in mankind.

 

Communism has it exactly bass-ackwards.

In reply to by Escrava Isaura

webmatex Dame Ednas Possum Dec 30, 2017 7:58 AM Permalink

2018? The BEST SHOT!
Many more "participants" will come in from the oppresive fiat cold of the central banking system to defend their privacy and wealth, to unite against a corrupt cancer which has infected generations with its debt and depravity.
But more precious than any BTC price will be the demand in the coming year by milions of citizens who will demand a BlockChain Voting system. Public distrust for Central Banking  is equaled only by their certainty that Voting Machines, lack of acountability and George Soros do not a fair election make.
BlockChainVote is available, cheap and guarantees fair and transparent elections right out of the box which is why Government will hate it. Voting Acountability. Who could object?
No pesky smart card or touch screen contracts for the "boys" .
No Hills Zombie Army.
No more shameless shenannigans and skullduggery EU elections and referendi.
Demand BlockChainVote Now and Clean the Swamp in 2018!
 

In reply to by Dame Ednas Possum

bloofer Freddie Dec 30, 2017 11:23 AM Permalink

There are quite a few "intentional communities" (ICs) or "communes," around the US. One of my daughters has lived in or visited several of them. They vary a LOT, in a lot of ways: The type of people they attract, how well run they are, and what they're trying to achieve. The biggest positive about the good ones is that they are trying to achieve self-sufficiency, often with some degree of success, and they offer young people a life where they can do something productive and interesting along those lines. This is a pretty good thing--an alternative to the very dismal life and prospects offered by corporate/government employment (about the only kind of employment there is, these days). The biggest negative to ICs, in my opinion, is that their culture doesn't encourage family formation. I'm not sure of the reasons it works out that way.

Anyway. I've met a few people who are/were members of ICs, and almost all of them were good decent kids ("kids" from my perspective as an old person). But what I've noticed about the members of one of the big East Coast communes is that many of them seem to be from very wealthy families. That is, some of them have that unmistakable "trust fund baby" aura about them--or at least "trust fund baby in waiting." They're attracted to ICs because they are good places for a young person to bide their time while they wait to inherit Daddy's money. (Getting a job would be beneath them.)

In former times, this type of kid just stayed in college till they were 40--probably because college was a lot cheaper in former times, so their parents didn't mind warehousing them there so much.

Just to put in a plug for ICs: If I were a young person who wanted to learn self-sufficiency skills, or even some business skills, I would join one for a couple of years, learn all I could, and then get my own place and starting using these skills independently. This could be the real strength of ICs, but that's not the type of person they attract.

Ideally, ICs should be organized so that land ownership in or adjacent to the community was available on some kind of terms to members once they "graduated." Sort of like the way an Amish family will buy their son a farm. In other words, I think ICs should be working towards offering committed members independent self-sufficiency, and training them for it--and encouraging family formation. Most ICs themselves really struggle for self-sufficiency, so the money for that is (at least in theory) not available, many ICs were initially funded by wealthy donors, so it seems like it would be possible to round up the money for a change in focus.

In reply to by Freddie