Somehow I thought that when you ran as say, a Democrat, that Democrats would at least acknowledge that you exist instead of stealing all your platform planks, (watering them down), and then trying to find people to run on them. But that is exactly what the Democrats are doing in the face of Bernie Sanders’ unexpected popularity. First it was Hillary, with her student loan program and her sudden concern for the middle class. Then she got in trouble, so the party players decided to float Biden. Biden seems to be nibbling, so we may see him in the race. Then this weekend, the Guardian ran a story saying people wanted Gore to run. Somehow I don’t think that’s likely but really? You want to run Gore? Anyone?
Clearly Sanders failure to stay with the pack is bothering the party faithful almost as much as Hillary’s ongoing scandals. On the one hand, you could hardly expect them to like him — Sanders isn’t even a Democrat. I tend to think of him as an Independent, but news media like to call him a Socialist or sometimes a Social Democrat, which is to say, left. Unabashedly left, meaning on the side of people, not corporations and governments and other giant edifices of power. To my surprise, his message seems to be resonating with people in farflung parts of this great land. Everywhere he’s gone, people have lined up to see him into the tens of thousands. His grassroots fundraising has been having similar success, with (if his campaign is to be believed) more individual donors than any other candidate.
People’s reasons for supporting him are varied but the one that comes up most is that they agree with everything he’s saying. Which means, if I may paraphrase, that they’re fed up with the status quo and think it’s time regular people got a break. It’s hard to watch your life sliding slowly downhill while wealthy Americans climb ever higher on their big piles of loot. Why, it seems downright unfair! Bernie is acknowledging that, and from the point of view of his audience, it’s nice to hear your own views, even your own secret views, echoed back to you by someone who might be able to help.
Despite the buzz about Bernie, this has been his campaign so far: doing all the right things, drawing crowds, convincing crowds, being completely ignored (until recently) by the American press, and now having random also-rans thrown at him to see if they can dilute him. Of course as many people have said, a Biden or even a Gore is not going to take from Sanders — they’re going to dilute Clinton. Which must infuriate Hillary. How dare they? It’s simple — they think this email scandal is going to take her out and they cynically want to make sure there’s a “viable” (backable, controllable) candidate in the race.
Sanders is clearly not a candidate the upper echelons of the Democratic party can get behind, which is too bad because to me, Sanders epitomizes what I thought Democrats were about to begin with–being on the left, the party of the little guy, the poor, the elderly, and regular middle class people. When the Republicans started to chip away at that block, it wasn’t because the Democrats were too far left. They were too far right. And now they’re so far right that there are many times when it’s hard to distinguish our Democrat-in-chief Barack Obama from a moderate Republican. But I digress.
People who still think that being left of center is the kiss of death for anyone running for office need only look at Sanders to see that that’s not true. He’s been elected here in statewide office for house and senate seats and won every race. This in a state that’s not nearly as liberal as out-of-state reporters like to think. I think Sanders resonates with the political middle as well as the left because no one else is speaking for the average citizen. We get preached at, exhorted, distracted, and sometimes cheerled, but we don’t often hear from someone who sounds like they actually know where we’re coming from.
This election cycle, there are two very different people making waves in their respective parties: Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. Two more straight-shooting people would be hard to find, and by comparison, the rest of the candidates seem to wither away. If you can’t “do” candor and conviction, this may not be your year. As for the rest of us, we’re proving that we still have a role to play this election game, even if it’s just by liking the “wrong” guys. Who knew we could make them scramble like that?
Donald Trump does not display
Donald Trump does not display candor and conviction, what is mistaken for candor is bullying and macho bravado, as for conviction he has a well paved record of constantly changing his mind about issues. That is when he has ever shown even a slight topsoil of knowledgable information about a topic.
At this point in the campaign he has not spoken with any amount of depth about any issue related to the Presidency. Yesterday he went so far as to say that he would deport children who were born here and legally American citizens in order to keep the families together and if the parents were illegal the families had to go. He doesn’t even seem to understand the legislative process often speaking of making decisions that would not be the President’s to make.
As far as his being straight shooting that’s only if you’re talking about nasty barbs coming from his repulsive mouth sent in the direction of other people. He makes what appears to be bold expletive types of statements which on closer inspection are just nasty mean-spirited drivel. He has misrepresented himself over the years, fuzzying the fact that he is not the self-made man he likes his PR people to claim but in fact inherited a huge (read hUge) fortune and was a child of privilege from the moment he was born with the silver spoon stuck in that mouth.
Straight shooting, candor and having conviction are not words that should applied to Trump although they might often be by self-serving and subservient press and PR people. Certainly placing Trump and Sanders together, and describing them as having the same character is done so in error. Describing the two as being similar in any way, shape or form is unfair to Sanders who is thoughtful, sincere, serious of thought and generous in spirit
Reality and perception
I find Trump entertaining, but I tend to agree with you that his candor is more bluster than true plain speaking. That said, his adherents and admirers see him as a straight talker and that being true, it was hard to omit him from a piece about straight talking Bernie. I think it’s important to note that mealy mouthed politicians are making little headway so far this election season. Something about us, the people, has changed.
That said, I’m for Bernie, obviously. But you knew that. 😉
That his adherents and
That his adherents and admirers see him as a straight talker says more about them and it’s rather a damning picture of their attitudes and inclinations. With due respect, I think you do Bernie a huge disservice to link the two in any manner as they are not similar people or politicians at all, if, in fact, one wants to buy the myth that Trump is a politician. While I really like Bernie I am more skeptical than you about this being some indication of the people changing.
And I have some reservations about Bernie’s possibilities depending on who the Republicans choose. For one thing, that “Socialist Democrat” label may do a lot of harm among the general populace who won’t see past the Socialist. Bernie’s ability to gather huge crowds is not an indication of how the majority of people would vote in an election. Those crowds may consist of his total sum of supporters and at the polls he may not garner enough votes. But then I’m of the Eugene McCarthy generation. He had huge crowds also and was a really great guy and seemed like the whole world liked him but anyone who doesn’t remember what happened should google Eugene McCarthy Presidential bid. I’m not sure Bernie will be able to overcome party structure and control anymore than he did. But if he does so be it, however I’m not sure he could win the general Presidential election.
Also I believe that the Republicans would LOVE to run against Bernie as they see him as an easier challenge than Hillary. That makes me nervous and they might be right . . . it’s that socialist label again that I’m sure they love and can’t wait to run against.
While I like Bernie, I want to see someone win the primary who is electable. That might mean a more middle of the road politician but any of the Dems running would be better than a Republican in my book.
Rosa says...
“He doesn’t even seem to understand the legislative process often speaking of making decisions that would not be the President’s to make.”
This pretty much sums up what is wrong with the presidential ‘Super Bowl’ night. By the time any candidate makes it that far, it doesn’t really matter who wins. The real power, as the Congress ably demonstrates, is in the legislature. The president, with ‘executive decisions’ and the Supreme Court ‘rulings’ get a word in edgewise from time to time.
I agree, it's a joke. But I
I agree, it’s a joke. But I would hope that we at least end up with a President that understands the legislative process. I don’t even expect someone as well versed as Obama, but really, Trump. He would probably try to do away with the process if he were elected and then thwarted.
At HQ
At Democratic Headquarters:
“We need to win the White House. Who is doing well with voters?”
– Clinton is holding on, but Bernie Sanders seems to have a great deal of support.
“If Clinton isn’t a sure thing anymore, we need a Plan B. Who can we get?”
– Sanders is doing well. People like him.
“Right, so maybe we can get O’Malley to run. I’ll call him. Who else?”
– Uh, Sanders keeps attracting big crowds….
“Ok, I hear you. Chaffee’s in. Let’s see if Biden will run. Anyone else?”
– Sanders has the most individual donations. People would vote for him. Maybe we should put our efforts into making sure he wins.
“I’m calling Gore…”
………..
It amazes me how much the Democrats are squirming to distance themselves from something popular. The Republicans are doing the same thing. The party officials seem to want to ignore the candidates that are attracting attention of voters, but also seem unable to keep things under control.
I think party leadership on both sides is weak. The GOP is officially splintered, with its Tea Party faction at odds with tradition, and the Democrats are unofficially split, with centrists and left-leaners at odds with each other.
It’s also interesting that what is appealing to voters, as Lise pointed out, are the candidates that aren’t having their words poll-tested and massaged by consultants.
While I'm sure that the Dem
While I’m sure that the Dem establishment might be nervous about Bernie, I can understand their concern. I don’t think they are basing their nervousness on poll standings at this point. While he has moved up in some polls recently, Hillary still leads by enough. Also, at least in this poll survey, note that the poll where he has creeped up the most is Fox News. As I said before, the Republicans would much rather run against Bernie than Hillary. That’s why they are trashing her constantly even though she’s staying out of the limelight for now and not criticizing Bernie at all.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html#polls
Not Very Fun Parties To Attend
That seems to be the official party view, that despite him doing well and appealing to people, we need someone else!
Nervous about an appealing, sane candidate. That’s weird!
FOX trashes Hillary because she’s a Clinton. She has lots of perceived baggage that they can use to trigger reactions to her, which makes for good TV for their audience of old grumpy people. They don’t do that with Bernie, in my view, because the best they have so far is “he’s a socialist, and his hair is messy” which hasn’t worked very well in the past to prevent a Sanders election.
I don’t think there is any organized Republican strategy at the moment, other than “let’s let rich guys float their favorites and see what sticks.” I think most of those on the GOP side would LOVE to run against a Clinton, and they, like the Democrats, hope Sanders will go away. The anti-Clinton playbook is established and vast.
Well we'll see what pans out.
Well we’ll see what pans out. Personally I think you cannot understate what fear that self-applied socialist label will generate outside of the Vermont / New England area. I think the Republicans think that they can make mincemeat of Bernie. Now whether they can or will have the opportunity remains to be seen but seriously it’s Hillary they’re afraid of. She’s still way ahead of everyone in the polls and that’s what Republicans look at. That’s my opinion, for what it’s worth. I’ll be taking a very long train ride shortly, will be interesting to see what the folks out in the hinterlands are thinking. I predict a lot of Donald fans who think he’s some sort of self-made guy who speaks the truth. Which will mean they aren’t even paying attention.
Not about Hillary
Sorry, Hillary does not hijack this thread. Bernie Sanders is who we are talking about here. Don’t attempt to change the subject completely away from Mr. Sanders. Save Hillary for another thread.
Bernie takes the high road
Bernie won’t do the typical party politics in his campaign. He won’t criticize Hillary, he won’t bluster rhetoric. They don’t know what to do with him in the Dem party, and the media can’t counter him except to try to ignore him. He’s the wild card. It’s up to us to make him win the primaries. And we can do that.
We can only hope
We can only hope that Hilary implodes sooner, rather than later.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/07/31/1407626/-Hillary-Can-t-Win#
Well then you'd better hope
Well then you’d better hope Bernie can win the General because if he can’t it’s going to affect us all tremendously for years with the Republicans in office. Personally I’m not going to get into some sort of circular firing squad, I will support whoever wins the Primary . . . because the stakes are way too high. Keep in mind that you have to carefully look at each poll and who is running it and why they interpret the results as they do. The same web site you cite has written another article about how one can’t tell anything from polls these days. Hilary is far more liberal than anyone in the Republican field and far better on civil rights and women’s issues. And at this point the choices are either Hilary or Bernie if you’re looking for anyone with an ounce of heart in their policies. Let’s take a note from Bernie himself and talk about what a good candidate he is, not be bashing Hilary and stay on a positive note.
There is more than one take on that one
Hilary activates the Republican base. If she is nominated, they will come out in droves.
She brings in a yawn at best from the Democratic base. She is a potential disaster, strategically.
Also, pointing out her policy positions, and lobbyist links to prison corporations, and large banks, fossil fuel industry, her voting for the Iraq war is not bashing. Many progressives feel that she really must be stopped before she gets in. That debate is what a NOMINATION is about. Otherwise, its just a false, soviet like process.
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/why-surprising-numbers-republicans-have-been-voting-bernie-sanders-vermont
Like I said, we'd all be wise
Like I said, we’d all be wise to take a note from Bernie and not engage in the circular firing squad. She’s disliked by “progressives” for many of the same reasons they’ve complained about Obama, corporate links, not strong enough on fossil fuel industries, etc. and Obama is going to go down as one of the most effective Presidents in recent years. You may think that trashing Clinton is what the NOMINATION is about but apparently Bernie doesn’t. Follow his lead.
Low standards?
” Obama is going to go down as one of the most effective Presidents in recent years”
No he isn’t. But, this thread isn’t about Obama.
This is about why the Democratic leadership is avoiding or afraid of Sanders (and clearly unsure and nervous about Clinton), rather than getting behind him and helping him to win. It says MUCH about the party that they are keeping him at arms length.
The machine could go to work for him, if directed to do so.
I think the truth lies in that Sanders scares Democrats because he is willing to point our how far they’ve drifted to the right, and to wealthy supporters. If the Democrats really were the party of the regular guy, Sanders wouldn’t be a threat. He’d be their leading choice.
…
It’s also not a circular firing squad to point out that Clinton has baggage. It’s astute, and in direct response to the comments about how the GOP are afraid of her, and relates to how the Democrats are nervous and looking for alternatives to her, as long as they aren’t Sanders.
She’s run and lost before.
My worry is that those who voted for Obama because of his skin color will vote for Hillary because of chromosomes. Not a high enough standard for me.
From a 2015 progressive
Yeah, at least in recent years. Bush, Bush II, Reagan, Nixon . . . . you don’t think Obama has done a better job than that crew?
From a 2015 progressive viewpoint the Democrat party hasn’t moved to the right, they’ve been to the right all along. Most progressive moves on their part have been forced in some way or other. As for this
“My worry is that those who voted for Obama because of his skin color will vote for Hillary because of chromosomes. Not a high enough standard for me.”
Really? Jeez, nothing more to say then.
I'm confused as to why you
I’m confused as to why you think Chris’s comment””My worry is that those who voted for Obama because of his skin color will vote for Hillary because of chromosomes. Not a high enough standard for me.” to be offensive or easily dismissed. Would you want people to vote for Hilary solely on the fact that she’s a woman? I’ve heard so many people ( almost always female) saying that they feel like they “have” to vote for her because we need more strong women in politics. We do, indeed but that’s not the reason people should vote for her over someone who may be a better candidate on the issues that count.
I remember women friends of my mother stating unequivocally that they were voting for JFK because ” he’s just so handsome”. Looks, gender,race or hair styles should not be included in the list of why a particular candidate gets elected. Yet those things all seem to come into play much more than where someone stands on issues.
Well let me put it this way,
Well let me put it this way, my concern is that those who voted for Nader because of he was a white Progressive man will also vote for Bernie because he’s a white Socialist man. I’m going to just assume that those votes will have nothing to do with an affinity for either man’s political stances or beliefs. I just have a higher standard than simply voting for white Progressive men.
I’ve constantly over my lifetime heard men say (well, mostly men) that they could never vote for a woman or a minority because they just aren’t capable enough or, in the case of women, they are just too emotional for such a serious office. Why in fact one of them was the same guy who told me he couldn’t hire me because I was just going to get married and quit anyway. Why in fact one argument against giving women the vote was that they’d just vote for the most handsome guy, they wouldn’t be serious enough to vote properly. Thanks for perpetuating the stereotype. Did it ever occur to you that your mother’s friends might have been making a tongue in cheek comment? Apparently not.
If I wanted everyone to vote for Hilary because she’s a woman, I guess I would also want everyone to vote for Carly Fiorina because she is also a woman. But I don’t.
However the fact is I support both Hilary and Bernie, I’m with whoever wins the primary. I just said, and I’ll say it again, let’s take a note from Bernie and not be taking potshots at Democrat candidates.
Is any of this offensive or problematic to you? I’ll be very confused if you easily dismiss my comments.
Re: Above sentence, make a mental picture of tongue in cheek please.
First of all, knowing my
First of all, knowing my mother’s friends and the political climate at that time I’m quite sure that their comments were not tongue in cheek. I believe that there are always going to be large groups of people who vote for candidates based solely on appearance, race, gender and a long list of other attributes that have little to do with how well they would do the job. I don’t think anyone has been taking potshots at any Democratic candidates in this thread.People have provided links to articles that offer possible reasons why one or another candidate might be better. But, I don’t view those as potshots. And, although I would certainly embrace and vote for Hilary over any of the Republican candidates- she would not be my first choice. If Biden jumps into the game it will be a much more interesting situation on the Democratic side.
And, I’m trying to make that mental picture of that last sentence of yours being tongue in cheek but it’s just not working. It still comes across as just plain snarky. But, we are under no obligation to agree with each other on this matter. Or any other, really.
I guess I'm not as cynical as
I guess I’m not as cynical as I thought I was. I actually don’t believe that all that many people vote based on appearance, as for race and gender hard to gather any statistics, we’ve only had those options for a few election cycles so far but I still doubt it. I think that those who voted for Obama over Romney or McCain didn’t do so because he was the black candidate. It was a plus but the differences in both cases in terms of political stances were pretty obvious. And if that were to hold true, those women who say they would vote for Hilary because she’s a strong woman most likely will be switching over to vote for Fiorina if she gets the nomination and runs against Bernie. And one thing you can say about Carly is she’s a strong woman.
I guess you think that saying Hilary gets a yawn from fellow Democrats and is a disaster strategically are not potshots. I guess one person’s potshot is another person’s stating the obvious, n’est pas? As for snarkiness, I guess my point was a little dull at the end there or poorly connected. But snarky? Really? I thought I was just sort of repeating what you had posted to me. So again, one person’s snakiness depends on who’s saying it I guess.
Whatever. Now THAT’S snarky.
At any rate I think stating that someone voted a certain way did so because of race or sex is dismissive and usually not all that accurate. Again Hilary voters won’t likely be switching to Carly so they can vote for the strong woman in the race. It’s just not that simple.
I don't think I ever said or
I don’t think I ever said or even suggested that those people supporting Hilary would automatically switch to Carly supporters if Hilary is not the Dem candidate. Obviously there’s a distinction between those who believe in Republican politics and those who believe in Democratic. My point is that nobody should be supporting any candidate just because they are one gender or another. It would be tremendous in all kinds of ways if a strong, progressive Democratic woman were elected President but nobody deserves to be president based merely on the fact that they have a vagina or penis.
I think the fact that you had to suggest that I take your sentence as “tongue in cheek” is proof enough that it was anything but. If my original comment to you about Chris’s post was meant to be ‘snarky” it would have been very obvious. I’m not really interested in a war of the words to define “snarky”.
I’m pretty sure we both have better things to do.
I didn't say you said
I didn’t say you said anything of the sort, what I said was that if your logic is followed though than anyone voting for Hilary only because she is a strong woman would then also be more likely to support Carly if she were running against Bernie because she also is a strong woman. That’s the follow through on that train of thought. And it doesn’t hold water.
Bernie Sanders This Is
Was this story supposed to be about Hillary? I didn’t realize that. Let’s get back on track and discuss Bernie Sanders.
Potshots are of course in the eye of the partisan beholder
There are many legitimate reasons to be extremely concerned about Hilary, both from a policy perspective and from a strategic one.
Mentioning as Secretary of State, that she oversaw the stranding of Edward Snowden in Russia by revoking his passport, and then dishonestly saying that he has chosen to seek refuge there, and suggesting that he was not a whistle-blower but probably akin to a traitor, for example, is not a potshot.
Pointing out that she has accepted large donations from bundlers of donations from the prison industry is not a potshot, and that her top donations are linked to the very banks that she is opposed to subjecting to the type of oversight demanded by Senator Warren and by Sanders, is gravely concerning, at least to some of us.
Calling these type of things ‘potshots’ sounds like language straight from the instructions to be found on the Clinton email list serve. It sounds like an attempt to silence any criticism.
Her testimony before Congress is scheduled for October. There is a lot of reasons to believe it won’t go well, from a strategic stand point. For example, this was a disaster. She is a terrible campaigner, and if she becomes the nominee, we may be stuck on a sinking ship.
http://news.yahoo.com/video/hillary-clinton-jokes-wiping-email-234614660.html
Get real
Sanders won’t be the nominee because the national Dems are too financially dependent on the same wealthy donors that he plans on destroying with his fiscal redistribution policies.