No doubt Bernie would become president if he was 10 years younger. Maybe we can get lucky and Bernie will be Mandela like in his longevity and mental acuity. Hillary may well be able to run out the clock with her universal name recognition, elite support, corporate PAC money and the rigging of the whole election cycle by the DNC of things like the debate schedule, superdelegates etc. HOWEVER IT IS NOT ALL ABOUT BERNIE as an individual. He both as an individual and from the surging popularity of the policies which he is espousing (nearly all of which Hillary is aping with not so good credibility) has shown the way to a new Democratic Party which wins back many of the white working class and the demise of the two Corporate Party system.
I don't think there is any benefit for Obama to publicly endorse a Democrat at this time as a sitting president endorsement might open up some big riffs in the party. If I recall Bill Clinton didn't endorse Al Gore in the primaries in 2000 nor did Reagan GH Bush in 1988. As for Warren I think your read is right she's a prominent figure and the smart thing for her to do is to stay above the fray until there is a clear winner. Sorry to be answering both of you in the same post but since it's on the same thing. That is a big "if" Sanders gets his agenda accomplished. Leaving that aside though have you considered that Obama supports Clinton because she was his Secretary of State and is someone who he has both worked closely with and fought against so he respects her abilities? Or have you considered that maybe Obama knows something about what it takes to get things done and feels that Clinton is more likely to get more accomplished? Or Warren might just see Sanders' as toast and doesn't want to sully her reputation by attaching herself to a losing campaign.
Largely this. The GOP has hated Clinton for 25 years and has been doing all it can to take her down. Sanders for almost all of that time has barely registered on the GOP consciousness. Even now in the Repub. primaries most of the criticism has been at Hillary Clinton with little mention of Sanders. If Sanders wins the primary that will change. Consider in 2008 there was a similar pattern. Early on a lot of Republican attacks were at Clinton with little mention of Obama. Once it appeared that Obama was actually going to win the nomination then you started seeing all the nasty stuff like Birthers, Rev. Wright and etc. come out.
I largely agree with you. While a presidential campaign provides a good way to crystallize a movement and provide a face to it it's largely not sustainable without an organization that can build at a local levels. One problem that I've seen with the Left in this country is that they've forgotten or do a poor job on this. Sanders in 2016 reminds me a lot of Nader in 2000, Obama in 2008 and Occupy movement in 2013. Those movements got a lot of people motivated drew a lot of attention but largely fizzled. They became more focused on large scale and flashy activities like presidential races and occupations without doing stuff like getting candidates elected to state houses or congressional representative seats. If you compare that to the Tea Party is that they did become very activity in all levels of the Republican Party and as such have greatly shaped where that party is now and also the national debate.
Trump will be an interesting nominee. 1. He'll probably be a lot people who wouldn't normally vote to the polls, but like his angry rhetoric directed at the system that these folks have claimed has kept them from not voting or being disinterested in politics in the first place. 2. He'll bring a lot of people who wouldn't normally vote to the polls but hate his stance towards Latinos, people who have family in Mexico and feel like Trump won't let them into the U.S. Same for patriotic Muslims with family over seas. All of those groups will have a higher turn out than they've had ever. 3. Add to that those that switch parties to vote for Trump 4. Add to that those that switch parties to vote against Trump. 5. Then there are those that hate Democrats, but can't bring themselves to vote for Trump either, and stay at home, even though they normally would vote. There are probably half a dozen other variables that will come into play with Trump as the nominee that have never been a factor before. We can look at polls now, but there are just so many variables and its still so far out that those polls may not mean anything.
The left and the right are increasingly radicalized as compared to previous elections. You have a fascist on one side and a strong socialist on the other, and then there's frumpy old Clinton. I don't think it says anything about the state of our country just yet, because nobody's won yet and you've had plenty of whackos through history mobilize the mob to get fairly close to the presidency. But if we actually go ahead and elect one of the whackos, then it will signify a sea change in how we are raising and electing politicians. If it gets bad enough we might need to change how people are voting, because right now the majority is more silent than they've ever been, and it's the radical elements of society that are pulling us apart.
IF it's Bernie and Trump it will be very weird. Each would help the turnout for the other with so many against votes. I don't think even Hillary would energize those against her so much except in places she wouldn't have won anyways.
Also keep in mind that in this scenario, it would in all likelihood be Trump vs. Sanders vs. Bloomberg. So you'd have A LOT of centrist types turning out as well.
I think this already happened in congress. And the past years of pure gridlock and obstruction are a testament to it.
Hey if somebody proposed the same degree of less than cautious change in a local school board race or your subdivision neighborhood group you would be taking the position that their chances of winning would be greater if they would just propose a smaller change. The Tea Party was enormously aided by Fox New which gave their initial splashy meetings round the clock publicity. They had paid organizers funded by the Koch Bros right off the bat They succeeded brilliantly in misdirecting the frustration with the bailout of Wall Street and declining living standards of the white working class.
Actually I have gotten so worried about Nafta/greedy gal Hillary beating Trump that I wonder if Bernie would consider being her VP to help her win, though a significant number of his supporters would be pissed. He might do it if Hillary would state publicly that after further consideration she is for national health care and free college. Hillary is obviously "flexible" enough to agree instantly if she thinks it that would be needed to win. Bernie might agree to run as a duty to the citizens of the United States. If it is the reverse I think Hillary would just go back to giving even more speeches to Goldman, though with no prospects for the presidency her honrariums might go down substantially.
Yes because most of the radicals I've seen running for school board are people who believe the Earth is 6,000 years old. In Minneapolis in the last 15 years we've had Green party candidates run and win election to city council. One of them was my neighbor who's campaign I donated money too. They did but at the same time Sanders' has raised a lot of money, Obama raised a lot in 2008, and Occupy raised so much money they didn't know what to do with it. Further to win a local election it doesn't take a lot of money. With a relatively small dedicated turnout local races can easily be swung. This is partly my point. People complain about how overwhelming money is in politics but to win a State house seat it doesn't take that much. If your party can control the state house during a Census year then they control redistricting. It's not some secret for successfully building up a movement from the ground up but it does take patience and in the words of Paul Wellstone Organize, Organize, Organize! That's what the Tea Party did and there is no reason why progressives can't do the same.
Clinton has already said she's for national health care, not the same kind that Sanders is but she has stated that is her ultimate goal. Heck Clinton was trying to get major health reform passed 25 years ago in case people forgot. I agree that Clinton is slimy and has played fast and loose with ethics but she does have a record of advancing many progressive causes.
You do know that a lot of people don't vote for president people they consider "slimy. who play fast and loose with ethics" Bernie being the opposite on this dimension is one of the reason why 25% of Republican voters actually vote for Bernie in Vermont, though they often disagree with him particularly on social issues. It is this cross appeal to white Republicans ( hey that who lives in Vermont) and independents that makes him more electable in the general election.
Even though they appear 100% different, Sanders and Trump are actually the same. They are protest votes against business as usual. Everyone knows what Clinton represents. It's what we have now and it sucks for most people. Sanders supporters are going to flip to Trump when Hillary steals the nomination from him in broad daylight.
No billionaires are going pay to organize progressives like they did the tea party. there's no profit in it. Offices, web designers, paid opinion posters, tri- corner hats etc.....
I've never seen an interview with Chris Mathews where he looks like the sane one. Wow. Sanders is living on his own planet.
