2016 Presidential Primaries [ SUPER TUESDAY | 3-1-'16]
- Thread starter 57Brave
- Start date
But Bernie Sanders? I just don’t know.
After a career of steadfastly insisting that the Democratic party was not his home, now he wants to not only be a member of the party but its standard bearer? What changed?
Is Bernie’s newfound party affiliation just a practical decision to run in a party that can win rather than risk being a Nader-esque spoiler on a third party line in November? That’s a fair calculation, but doesn’t it wipe away Bernie’s three decades of standing as a principled Socialist?
Many times over the course of his career Bernie has repeated the line that his independence made him more able to speak truth. He argued forcefully that being a Socialist was his identity and not function of political expediency. Well, duh, nobody chooses to be a Socialist to smooth their political path. Yet, as 2016 approaches, here he is filing papers all over the country presumably declaring himself a member of the Democratic Party.
He's a fake.
After a career of steadfastly insisting that the Democratic party was not his home, now he wants to not only be a member of the party but its standard bearer? What changed?
Is Bernie’s newfound party affiliation just a practical decision to run in a party that can win rather than risk being a Nader-esque spoiler on a third party line in November? That’s a fair calculation, but doesn’t it wipe away Bernie’s three decades of standing as a principled Socialist?
Many times over the course of his career Bernie has repeated the line that his independence made him more able to speak truth. He argued forcefully that being a Socialist was his identity and not function of political expediency. Well, duh, nobody chooses to be a Socialist to smooth their political path. Yet, as 2016 approaches, here he is filing papers all over the country presumably declaring himself a member of the Democratic Party.
He's a fake.
Gary82
Called Up to the Major Leagues
Two possible reasons:
One: He actually wants to be President. You don't win without being a member and having support from one of the two major political parties.
Two: He's an idealist that just wants to push the Democrats and America further left.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...85377e-2b37-11e5-bd33-395c05608059_story.html
So far, at least, there’s little reason to think Sanders can duplicate what led Obama to victory. Yes, he’s surged in the polls to be the clear challenger to Clinton, a remarkably rapid and impressive feat for a senator from a small state who has never run for national office before in order to seek the nomination. If his momentum continues, and if former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley and others can take chunks of the vote, Sanders could win Iowa and even New Hampshire.
But Sanders still looks likely to follow in the tradition of Bradley and Dean. Polls show that he’s doing well with liberal white voters and struggling everywhere else, and he has negligible support and limited name identification among black and Latino voters. There is no doubt that Sanders has lit the progressive wing of the Democratic Party on fire by speaking out boldly against inequality and excess on Wall Street. But he faces real challenges that Obama did not in expanding his base of support. Sanders is from a small state with very few minority voters, while Obama had deeper relationships to build on, especially with the African American community.
Sanders’s campaign is growing rapidly, but even with new field offices opening fast, it’s still less than half the size of Obama’s organization at a similar juncture in our race: In July 2007, Obama had 80 paid staffers working in 25 offices in Iowa. Obama was able to raise more early money for his campaign; that, coupled with his potential to make history as the nation’s first black president, attracted a very experienced set of advisors with deep knowledge of how to run a sophisticated operation. While Sanders has decided to play the role of the liberal challenger to Clinton, pushing her to the left at every opportunity, Obama ran a much less ideological campaign, which allowed him to build a broader base of support from the outset.
If 2008 is not the best parallel for Sanders vs. Clinton, what is? Probably the 2000 contest between Vice President Al Gore and Bill Bradley. That contest, like this one, was about who would get a chance to succeed a two-term Democratic president. That contest, like this one, was essentially a two-person race (though this could change in the coming months). And in that contest, like this one, the Democratic Party was looking to redefine itself for a new era. Bradley made a surprisingly strong challenge to a sitting vice president, forcing Gore to shake up his campaign, move his headquarters from D.C. to Nashville and retool his entire effort. Ultimately, though, Bradley could not broaden his base of support, and he ended up losing all 50 states to Gore.
History says that Clinton is likely to be our nominee and that Sanders is doomed to repeat the fate of Bradley and the rest. Of course, history said the same thing about Obama, and there’s a reason that people say “anything is possible in politics.” But the odds are that by this time next year, the 2008 campaign will remain the exception, not the rule.
So far, at least, there’s little reason to think Sanders can duplicate what led Obama to victory. Yes, he’s surged in the polls to be the clear challenger to Clinton, a remarkably rapid and impressive feat for a senator from a small state who has never run for national office before in order to seek the nomination. If his momentum continues, and if former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley and others can take chunks of the vote, Sanders could win Iowa and even New Hampshire.
But Sanders still looks likely to follow in the tradition of Bradley and Dean. Polls show that he’s doing well with liberal white voters and struggling everywhere else, and he has negligible support and limited name identification among black and Latino voters. There is no doubt that Sanders has lit the progressive wing of the Democratic Party on fire by speaking out boldly against inequality and excess on Wall Street. But he faces real challenges that Obama did not in expanding his base of support. Sanders is from a small state with very few minority voters, while Obama had deeper relationships to build on, especially with the African American community.
Sanders’s campaign is growing rapidly, but even with new field offices opening fast, it’s still less than half the size of Obama’s organization at a similar juncture in our race: In July 2007, Obama had 80 paid staffers working in 25 offices in Iowa. Obama was able to raise more early money for his campaign; that, coupled with his potential to make history as the nation’s first black president, attracted a very experienced set of advisors with deep knowledge of how to run a sophisticated operation. While Sanders has decided to play the role of the liberal challenger to Clinton, pushing her to the left at every opportunity, Obama ran a much less ideological campaign, which allowed him to build a broader base of support from the outset.
If 2008 is not the best parallel for Sanders vs. Clinton, what is? Probably the 2000 contest between Vice President Al Gore and Bill Bradley. That contest, like this one, was about who would get a chance to succeed a two-term Democratic president. That contest, like this one, was essentially a two-person race (though this could change in the coming months). And in that contest, like this one, the Democratic Party was looking to redefine itself for a new era. Bradley made a surprisingly strong challenge to a sitting vice president, forcing Gore to shake up his campaign, move his headquarters from D.C. to Nashville and retool his entire effort. Ultimately, though, Bradley could not broaden his base of support, and he ended up losing all 50 states to Gore.
History says that Clinton is likely to be our nominee and that Sanders is doomed to repeat the fate of Bradley and the rest. Of course, history said the same thing about Obama, and there’s a reason that people say “anything is possible in politics.” But the odds are that by this time next year, the 2008 campaign will remain the exception, not the rule.
50PoundHead
Hessmania Forever
Right now, Sanders is the "anybody but Hillary" candidate and the only person in the Democratic field whose voting record is in stark contrast to Clinton's purported stances and actual statements. Hillary doesn't have that deep a voting record from being in the Senate for a single term, so she's amorphous enough in that regard. O'Malley and Chafee just don't differentiate enough from Hillary to fire folks up.
I went to a couple of Bill Bradley meetings in 2000, but it was obvious from these meetings that most of the people there didn't understand the nuts-and-bolts of campaigning and the campaign, at best, was going to have to rely on Astroturf roots. I had been out of political hackery for a decade at that point, but I had been heavily involved in campaigns (mostly state legislative level) for a number of years and I am always surprised when smart people--and the people who were attending the Bill Bradley meetings were quite accomplished--don't realize that politics is more about elbow grease than position papers.
sturg33
I
I'll be sure to report to her...
If high taxes, socialist attitudes and centrally planned economics didn't work the European Union would have like a 9.6% unemployment rate right now... Oh.. Wait...
Gary82
Called Up to the Major Leagues
LOL
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
I would rather be like the EU than China.
Hillary is losing respect and Sanders won't get the nod. Is that not correct?
Gary82
Called Up to the Major Leagues
The nomination is Hillary's to lose. I think most people's minds are made up regarding her. I'll be interested to see how the numbers shake out if/when Biden joins the race. Either way Hillary has women, minorities and the establishment Dems. Sanders has reddit. And why bring up Gore? This isn't 2000. He's old news.
bravesnumberone
Well-known member
If Biden got in, I'd be curious to see whether Obama would endorse him or stay neutral and what impact that might have.
acesfull86
Well-known member
Trump slanders McCain and the GOP loses its mind. He'll fade eventually, but hopefully we'll get plenty of LOL moments before it happens. Not sure where the over/under is set on how long Trump is going to last...
Donald Trump is like comedic gold right now (and I quote
On Rick Perry: "He should be forced to take an IQ test before being allowed to enter the GOP debate."
On John McCain: "Graduated last in his class at Annapolis — dummy!"
He also said, RE: McCain, that he didn't like 'guys who got caught' ... that's kind of um, classless, but The Donald's no-filter approach is really refreshing in a world of manicured speeches/positions. It will eventually sink his ship, but until then it's fun watching some of these Republicans squirm.
On Rick Perry: "He should be forced to take an IQ test before being allowed to enter the GOP debate."
On John McCain: "Graduated last in his class at Annapolis — dummy!"
He also said, RE: McCain, that he didn't like 'guys who got caught' ... that's kind of um, classless, but The Donald's no-filter approach is really refreshing in a world of manicured speeches/positions. It will eventually sink his ship, but until then it's fun watching some of these Republicans squirm.
Hopefully through the entire debate season.
weso1
<B>Clique Leader</B>
Yes, the debates could be awesome if Trump can hold onto his poll numbers. I think he will as the first one is only a few weeks away. The McCain comment was really dumb though. Will be interesting to see how much that hurts him. His no holds barred approach is fun, but he needs a bit better of a filter.
50PoundHead
Hessmania Forever
When I saw Kr's comment, my first thought "Which of Al Gore's daughters suggested he get in the race?"
As for Hillary, any erosion she is experiencing is inevitable seeing that Sanders (and Elizabeth Warren before him) have been mounting criticism from the left end of the spectrum and Hillary has consistently been an establishment/DLC moderate. I think Jeb Bush will see a similar erosion on the Republican side. I expect both of them to weather the challenges.
Agreed. Hillary is the most logical nominee when you look ahead to the general election and it's not uncommon that we see this kind of intra-party conflict during primary season as future policy is shaped. Although I would add that it appears the Republican party is undergoing a natural move toward the center (which began, in earnest, during the 2012 cycle when guys like Gingrich/Santorum took a few big gasps of air and then fizzled out in short order) and I think this benefits Jeb. Obviously, the debates are going to much more profoundly challenge a platform like Bush's moreso than Clinton's -- by strict virtue of the fact that he's almost completely surrounded by a considerable field of fringe candidates who seem likely to unite on issues like immigration and education and leave him looking like an ugly duckling (a la Huntsman) with views that currently stand in almost complete contrast to the party's traditional stance on said issues.
I remember you stating late last year (or maybe early this year) that you didn't believe Bush would ultimately run. Now that he is, do you believe he'll be the nominee?
50PoundHead
Hessmania Forever
I make so many predictions that I forget most of them. I guess in retrospect I'm not that surprised he's running. I thought he would catch more heat (and he likely will from the more conservative Republicans) on Common Core and immigration and that might give him second thoughts. But these folks poll their meal choices, so my guess is (1) those criticisms don't hold much sway with potential delegates/voters and (2) no one else in the Republican field could capitalize on those areas of concern for Jeb (or register huge poll numbers period). If I were Jeb, my biggest concern now would be Trump. He won't win the nomination, but he could really shellac Jeb on some issues (which would weaken him) or hurt the whole Republican brand for the general.
Unless there is a real meltdown in his campaign or a strong breakout by another candidate, I think he will end up being the nominee. Question then goes to a Clinton v. Bush match-up and I give Hillary a slight edge, partially on the novelty "first woman" factor. I wonder who the VP candidates will be on both sides if my scenario for the top slots plays out.
57Brave
Well-known member
Just like Hawk predicted Sanders had issues at Net Roots with the "Black Lives Matters" 's.
This article by Joan Walsh :
http://www.salon.com/2015/07/20/ber...n_conflict_with_black_lives_matter_activists/
This article by Joan Walsh :
http://www.salon.com/2015/07/20/ber...n_conflict_with_black_lives_matter_activists/