What should Bernie have done as a US Senator in your opinion?

But in my opinion: something?

I will give your unbiased flatlander's opinion about what Senator Sanders should have done in my home state all of the serious consideration it deserves.

I'm actually posing this question because perhaps someone can offer info as to something that actually was done. A letter to the governor? An editorial op ed in local news? A speech to state legislators?

You said he didn't do enough, what should the senator have done?

And since I don't follow Vermont politics, and since you probably do being you're from there, perhaps you can provide some additional info as to what if any actions were taken?

Honestly I think exploiting the issues your candidate is weakest on is a bad move but please proceed.

This is fascinating.

Nothing could have been done, or no opinion either way?

You should concentrate on trying to dig your way out of this op.

Just like he's done so many times in Vermont.

State government vs federal government can be confusing for many.

I posted 2 articles.

about Bernie's home state running counter to his position on those two issues.

Then you posted this as a form of sarcastic attack against Bernie.

"A fighter who will use the bully pulpit. #FeelTheBern"

Please accept my apology for such an insulting op.

Peace to you, JaneyVee.

If only they would look at their candidate's position first they'd realize how absurd it is.

just placing links and ad hominem attacks.

Such as

There's a reason why Vermonters hate Shumlin and love Bernie but only a person who really wanted to learn about Vermont politics instead of dabbling and playing Palin style gotcha games would understand.

Thanks for the context but I fear it will be wasted on the op.

Has he used his popularity to do anything about these issues?

At least an op-ed in Vermont newspapers. Anything?

The hillarians fling poop, not answer questions

These had nothing to do with Bernie and he is right in his determination to do so across the US.

Question someone's intellect while providing nothing of substance. Like the posters above who think I'm a "misguided economist" who is confused about how govt works.

Bernie Sanders is a US senator for the state of Vermont. However you are trying to pin to him issues pertaining to the executive offices within that state - the Governor and Attorney general, respectively (or, since the AG answers to the governor, just the Governor) This is missing of course that Sanders has no say in what happens at that level, in that branch. It's the same thign as if you had tried to hold Barack Obama responsible for something the mayor of Chicago did or did not do.

Anyone with even a basic grasp of civics wound understand that this is an outright farcical argument.

You are not providing anything of substance. You are presenting a very silly non-point that deserves all the mockery it's getting. Sorry JaneyVee, but you bring it on yourself.

My question above was: What, if any, actions has he taken to stand up and fight for or against these in his home state? I don't follow Vermont politics and perhaps there were actions taken on Bernie's behalf.

And it's silly as all get-out.

Ok, good talk.

That's not a problem at all, and I'm glad you reached out, because there's help. This will get you started:

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="

He did become a Democrat, didn't he?

who wants to become an ordinary U.S. President. Is that the idea?

Perhaps you can enlighten us since the op is struggling.

Run for president in a party he's never been a member of? Am I getting warmer?

I take it back, that video can't help you.

And why would my Senator need to learn the difference between the branches?

Are you implying that you're more knowledgeable about government because Bernie opposed the TPP and you didn't?

Me being confused about how govt works. Even though my op says "bully pulpit". Anything?

The first link is why single payer failed in Vermont written in 2014. This is my opinion, but when President Obama settled for the ACA, it was with the idea that it would be a stepping stone to single payer down the line. 2014 wasn't down the line enough.

I think as we approach open enrollment on the ACA for the 3rd time, people are starting to realize how bigger companies have an unfair advantage in attracting and keeping the best qualified workers. They alone can afford to offer the best medical benefit packages to their workers. Now that small businesses must offer medical, they see how not being able to pool the workforce nationwide but only with their small numbers is really very costly. I always thought it was one way the larger corporations had a steady stream of indentured servants. Someone in the family needed that job so the family could be covered for a price they could afford, allowing the other spouse to have the more fun job with no benefits.

So people, small business and others are getting pissed at insurance companies who are dropping policies, moving out of state etc. What should be starting to become obvious that the problem isn't that everyone needs to be insured, is that the insurance companies make their own rules and regulations. They are the ones manipulating the costs and the benefit packages. They are the truly evil entities. This should lead people to the idea that if we had single payer, there would be no in or out of network bs, no silver level v gold level (sure there would still probably be medical insurance you could buy for add ons like elective plastic surgery etc)

So while in 2014, Vermont failed, I would say that if in the next few years it or any other state were to try, there would be far more people on board.

So then I think the answer to your question is that a President has a huge bully pulpit. A senator, no. The nearest equivalent pulpit for a state is not a senator, but the governor. And remember even in terms of being a senator, BS was not a State Senator (i.e. one that would have some political relationship to the governor or state laws), but rather a U.S. Senator. As a rule, U.S. Senators don't tend to get involved in state politics.

Though when it comes to single payer, a quick google search did turn up that, at the time, BS was trying to win support for a federal version of what Vermont was trying to do on the state level (the federal level being, well, where his job was, and the place where his pulpit--small as it might be--actually was).

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/may/10/healthcare-congress (from 2011)

And there's this:

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/must-read/a-single-payer-system-makes-economic-sense (from 2013)

I think it's safe to say that Bernie Sanders' support for single payer was probably well known in Vermont.

And, btw, according to the article you linked to it, Vermont's governor was indeed bully-pulpit pushing for it... in fact, he actually almost got it implemented, but ultimately wasn't able to get the economics of it to work and had to abandon it. There's nothing BS could have done to help unless he had come up with a way to finance it. Which, come to think of it, is, in a sense, was what he was trying to do, by laying groundwork to ultimately try to get it implemented on a federal level.