Bernie's almost exclusively white, and almost exclusively young demographic was no surprise, essentially hippies voting for a hippie candidate. But looking further it seems that Bernie's supports, and more so his core supports are generally quite rich. It seems as if Bernie's team consist of rich white kids who simply don't want to pay for college.
haha.. seriously. And Trumps supporters are mostly poor uneducated people who think they are voting on the next round of Survivor or American Idol. My own opinion is that the new Republican party ( since 2000) has gone after the uneducated voters. During Reagan and Bush1, the Republican party was seen as mainly upscale, educated and financially successful.. It was the party of Alex P Keaton.. it was the Yuppies.. and yes, I was a happy member of this party. Now look at the party, it is mainly redneck, hillbilly trailer trash that rejects science. The heroes of the party are ranchers that don´t want to pay grazing fees and country clerks who get fired for not doing their job. My opinion is the reason Republicans don´t want free college for everyone is mainly that they know that college educated people will leave the party. God-forbid you get some science education outside of ´home-schooling´.. you might actually understand vaccines and global warming. You want proof. Look at the states Romney won. States like Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina... those are all states that lead the country in low high school graduation rates, and lowest percentage of college educated people. We are currently 28th in the world in math and science education and you think free university is a bad thing? And here is the rub. Free public college for every student would not cost us a dime. Higher earnings, higher small business creation and higher productivity would probably make it a wash. You want proof? Look at what happened to this country when we offered free HS education to everyone back in 1900.. within a generation we went from basically a 2nd world country to the fastest growing and most powerful country on the planet. Something like 80% of jobs in the USA are from small businesses which came directly from free HS education.
Bernie's level of support is high enough that it is certainly not just that narrow demographic. And he is the only candidate who may actually not qualify as a one per-center. His total net worth is about $500,000 -- probably about what mine will be at his age and I would count myself middle class rather than rich. Nor am I sure about the link between not wanting to pay for college and being rich. Just under 50% of Americans get some tertiary education and I bet the poor ones worry about the cost more than the rich ones. I got a nearly free education and it gave me a lot more options than my American colleges with 5-figure debt.
Well regardless of who is supporting Bernie, if by some crazy stretch of the imagination he were to win the nomination, I don't see how he convinces the entire company to vote for him. His socialist label has severely tarnished him as a general election candidate. I like the guy, but he reminds me of a George McGovern or a Michael Dukakis, and we all know how they did, or at least those of us of a certain age know that.
I would not think so. If it really can be applied to anyone off the whole list, it's definitely Trump. However, he doesn't focus solely on rich people. Bernie is more of a candidate who tries hard to make everyone like him. It never works. The current results do confirm that.
I have many friends who are Bernie supporters and they are NOT rich!. Sanders has been a socialist and that is his appeal regardless of color. He is the candidate of the underdog, those who never had their voices heard.
Bernie happens to be one of those people who has the support of a very wide range, both from rich and poor demographics. I don't know anything about his actual contributors, but those are normally rich people no matter who you are.
He seems to be garnering a lot of support from some of the more hypocritical wealthy set, particularly in some regions. But, ultimately, he is just another Socialist stooge who seeks to maintain a permanent underclass. Said underclass, being depend upon government largess, keeps them in office. In other words, pretty much the evil of serfdom repackaged for the 21st century. Regardless, he isn't going to be the next president. He can't get the delegate counts at this point in time and, even if he did, the DNC would take the nomination away via superdelegates. I for, for one, will be glad when his decrepit visage is no longer displayed in the media on a daily basis.
In all of the polls, Sanders is beating all 3 Republicans by a higher margin than Hillary is. I agree that in principle he is very similar Dukakis, butt the difference now is that in the last 15 years the USA has moved away from the huge anti socialist mentality that they had during the 1980s. When Dukakis ran, just being labelled a liberal was the death of him. Most rational people know that when you say socialist, you are not saying communist russia, but instead are saying Canada, the UK, France, Germany, Italy. etc. Bernie is not a communist, he is more a European. Times have changed a lot since Dukakis.
Wе nееd tо mаkе а chоicе this еlеctiоn sеаsоn. Dо wе wаnt thе rich tо cоntinuе tо rulе this nаtiоn fоr thеir оwn purpоsеs? Оr dо wе wаnt tо cаll thе shоts аnd tаkе bаck оur gоvеrnmеnt? Dо wе wаnt thе gоvеrnmеnt tо cоntinuе rеdistributing оur incоmе tо thе rich viа intеrnаtiоnаl incоmе rеdistributiоn аgrееmеnts, fаlsеly mаrkеtеd аs intеrnаtiоnаl trаdе аgrееmеnts, such аs thе Trаns Pаcific Pаrtnеrship? Hillаry hаs bееn fоr it 45 timеs, аnd аgаinst it twicе. Thе rich nоw stеаl 37 pеrcеnt оf аll thе incоmе prоducеd in thе USА. Thеy sееmеd prеtty wеll оff bаck in 1980 whеn thеy оnly stоlе 8 pеrcеnt оf аll incоmе. Hоw much dо thеy nееd in оrdеr tо pаy thе bills?
