...a small piece of a much bigger Wall Street bailout that he thought was structured poorly (essentially all benefits to the banks, all risks to the government/taxpayers).

so he voted against it and his excuses are meaningless as Michigan showed him last Tuesday. Sanders betrayed the unions in this case.

As I recall, the argument at the time was, no, that wouldn't have happened, because there was no way SOME kind of Wall Street bailout was not going to happen, there were too many people in favor of it, on both sides of the aisle. So if that particular bill hadn't passed, it is not true that the banks and auto companies would all have gone under, but rather, everyone would have had to keep working to come up with a bill that would pass. But ultimately, the time pressure to get something done quickly was immense.

No one was in favor of bailouts ...Sanders always seems to what is political expedient with a long winded explanation...nope autos would have failed, banks would have too...we would have been screwed...this is one of the reasons, I have never thought Sanders should be president...he can't bend when circumstances require it. Sanders deserved to lose Michigan and he should lose Ohio, Wisconsin..anyplace that depends on autos...he betrayed the working people with this vote.

LOTS of people were in favor of them... that's why they passed! With a good amount of bipartisan support, no less.

re:

Yes he can. He railed against the ACA and really wanted at least a public option in it, but when he couldn't get what he wanted, he still voted FOR the ACA, accepting that it was still better than voting against it. Similarly, he railed against the 1994 crime bill, and tried to get an amendment to get the death penalty out of it, but in the end, still voted for it, because of the violence against women provision. Every complex multi-faceted vote is a balance, and like all our representatives, you end up voting for a mix of good and bad, he's not a purist. But sometimes he'll come down on the side you wanted, and sometimes he won't. That's even without the other variables when it comes to voting, like your assessment of the odds of being able to get something better, or the knowledge of whether it has enough votes to pass or not regardless of how you vote (which gives you some more leeway to vote strictly on principle rather than pragmatism).

would have been over. Look you can defend Sanders if you choose...my husband worked for autos...they were hours away from failing when this vote was taken...it would have been too late and we would have had a depression too...I don't like Sanders, I don't think he would be a good president...sure if he were the nominee, I would vote for him but thankfully that is not the case...regardless of what might have happened later...Sanders voted against this bill and the banks couldn't be allowed to fail either...so there you have it...he made a very bad choice and none of his explanations move me one bit...nor it appears did it move the voters in Michigan.

But there's always going to be someone who needs to be grandstanding at at moment in history when being a gadfly was not being helpful. Ugh.

People haven't forgotten. Thankfully.

People also haven't forgotten his pro-Russia / anti-sanction votes ... or being "conveniently" absent.

weary. Obama used political capital to save the banks and the autos...and that vote where Sanders voted no could very well have derailed the entire process if it failed. I expect we would have entered a depression. And isn't it funny how Sanders has all sorts of lofty excuses when in fact it is politically expedient for him to vote a certain way. Another example is the immigration bill which was supported by both Kennedy and Biden...but Sanders claims it was 'slavery'...and the gun votes show his love of excuses for votes that benefit him politically also.

provided the Dodd Frank financial reform, which unfortunately trump and company are trying to undo

FOR THAT REASON ALONE.

but some support trump here in Michigan.

We're seeing how just a relatively little devastation is working for him. Not. Most people don't want to destroy what they know can work well. Revolutions need devastation that, combined with deceit, seems so dreadful that large numbers of people lose hope of rebuilding what we once had.

Democrats know how to handle money for the benefit of all and not one side or the other!!!!!

We made money from those loans.

and throw us into such a debt crisis that they then try and blame us for the poor fiscal management they do..

It makes me sick.

with even the best legistlation.