Glynch - I'm curious - since it appears Sanders chances of winning the nomination are effectively over, how do you feel about the state of affairs? I assume you haven't had a politician you could really get behind in many years, so do you view his candicacy and popular support as encouraging for the future, or do you think this was his chance and the window is closed? If you think the window is still open, do you have a sense for the next set of candidates that could push his message on a national scale? My feelings on Sanders and his movement are irrelevant. But I'm curious as to where it goes from here.
It will be too late but the story of how the Clintons caved to the right and greatly hurt the African American community wrt to mass incarceration and cruelly throwing folks off welfare is becoming more known every day as the historians set the spin correct. I like to joke that on the infamous "three strikes and your out" a Clinton type triangulator would cut the Repubs off at the pass and propose three strikes because the Repubs were about to propose" two strikes and your out." http://www.npr.org/2016/03/13/47027...rength-among-white-men-pinched-by-the-economy
I appreciate your excitement on establishment gal Hillary prevailing, . I think that Bernie still won working class white males, but not by a big enough margin to win overall.
Hello. Not sure if I should post this in this thread, but I just don't think that my questions are worth creating a new one. I am a foreigner, so American election system confuses me a little. I just started researching but just want to clarify. So I understand: primaries are like elections just within (inside) the party? is there something else after, or a person, who won the primaries gets to be the candidate in presidential elections? I see that totally there are 4051 delegates and the person who gets 2383 delegates wins. Does one delegate represent one voting person? who gets to be a delegate? How do the superdelegate endorsements help? I find these primary results in various states announced now. Dumb question, but did the real voting already start? I mean, it's not just some kind of survey? If so, why do they not announce voting all over the country just in one weekend and not drag it for three months? To keep the suspense? Is the republican party election system similar? And what about other parties? Can a party make its own system of election or it's obligatory by the law to make such a voting (primaries)?
I think we were talking about young voters so even your naked assertion does not address your point. Hey maybe you are even correct, but I was asking for proof.
Well, see my posts above. Bernie is very much different from the phlegmatic slightly liberal Obama and I expect him to not unilaterally disarm his movment and try to use his 5 million plus contributor list to do more than support the moderately more liberal wing of the establishment. I would be shocked if we hear the last of Bernie. He will be the single most powerful Democratic Senator surpassing Elizabeth Warren and of course the usual corporate Dems the media puts on the tube occasionally. His endorsement will be very powerful and widely courted in the next mid-term. If Hillary loses or even if she just reverts to being a slightly more war like Obama Wall Street Dem he might even run again in four years. I suspect that Bernie will continue making big event speeches throughout the country and I hope he will build what I am calling Bernie Sander's clubs to build the political revolution and search for candidates to run against the established Dems who all lined up for Hillary. Bernie is actually serious about his life's work, the Political Revolution. Hillary as a typical politician will try as hard as her funders allow to coopt the movement.
Bernie was a one issue candidate. Problem is.....there is more than one issue. He is not Obama. Bernie has been in Congress for decades and all of sudden he was going to change things? It is not all about message; Obama's team changed the way you run election campaigns. Bernie did not have the ground game of Obama. Obama's organization has been sitting on the sidelines until Hillary wins the Nomination. Then you will see a huge effort to get the youngster out to vote. You will also see Obama stomping for Hillary with the younger demographic.
to answer your questions rather concisely, each party determines which candidate they want to represent them differently. they make their own rules [sometimes not very democratically either (see superdelegates)]. the republicans and democrats get the majority of the press coverage but there are lesser known parties that hold similar primaries such as the greens and libertarians. it makes much more sense to me to hold all primaries on the same day, but the leadership of each party prefers to keep the old way of doing things until it no longer suits them.
Thanks for the response. For the record, I don't doubt the authenticity of his beliefs (not sure anyone really doubts it), and I'm sure that he wants his beliefs to carry on. But I assume he is too old to effectively run again - and the public gets tired of seeing the same face too many times. I think if his movement is to continue on, he can be the leader (through Bernie clubs, etc), but he will need some strong surrogates to be the fresh face for the next election. And when Hilary beats Trump I wonder if anyone (aside from Bernie) will run as a Dem against her as the incumbent. 8 years from now may be too late for this movement to pick up again. Personally, I think he either needs a strong, fresh leader to have the guts to run against Hillary in 2020, or he needs to create a ton of momentum at the lower levels that can survive 8 years of Hilary. I'll be interested to watch it play out.
I think Sanders will become to the progressive movement what Goldwater was for the conservative movement. Sure he may not win the nomination much less the presidency, but Sanders' spirit and views will live on in the Millennials to whom he is so endeared until his movement finds its Ronald Reagan amongst them.
Agree with you. I think Elizabeth Warren would be that person but she's already up there in age. Warren could perhaps be the bridge to that next person to run for President, then again she could be a valuable person in a Clinton cabinet which might tarnish her with progressives tbat see Clinton as a corporate Democrat.
In general I see Bernie's Political Revolution as being akin to the Democratic Leadership Council, and the Tea Party. The DLC largely captured the Democratic Party for the corporate elite and turned it into the GOP light. This group was funded and organized by corporate cash. The Tea Party has certainly captured much of the GOP for racism, social conservatism, even more extreme federal government hatred, tax breaks that are slickly packaged to give well publicized crumbs to everybody, but are mainly for the elite and all the obnoxious appeal of Sarah Palin and Trumpism. The Bernie movement is trying to recapture the Democratic Party and the larger national debate and return it to the days of the New Deal which was clearly for the poor (they actually use the word much to the dismay of the DLC types) and the lower middle class up to the lower 99%. The DLC and the Tea Party were funded and organized by billionaire and corporate cash with largely the resultant policy positions. The Tea Party had the initial organizing gound work done by the Koch Brother and friends operatives with Murdoch/Fox immediately publicizing around the clock the first one or two relatively small demonstations of the Tea Party as a major political movement. This was then picked up as legit by the rest of the media. It was a brilliant diversion of the anger toward the Wall Street crash of the economy by quite a few of the less educated victims who as they wise up a bit are hard to keep in the establishment GOP fold. The Politcal Revolution of Bernie is funded $27 at a time and is not beholden to the corporate elite or the billionaires. It remains to seen if Bernie and the relatively small group of top level operatives and the very few politicians who are associating with it can keep it growing. We have the support of the public on the issues, but the establishment through the Clinton-Obama wing will try their damnest to coopt them and tone us down so as to not threaten the tax breaks to their funders the .1% and billionaires. It will be interesting to see how Bernie reacts to Hillary, assuming he loses. Will DNC/Hillary let Bernie give a big speech at the Convention. I think establishment DEms realize the threat Bernie poses to the DLC wing of the Democratic Party and do not wish to continue to give him major forums. Expect to see Bernie disappear even more from the big talk shows almost immediately after Hillary wins, which seems probable. Expect to see Dem Chuck Shumer corporate senator types and the typical conservative GOP senators on all the talk shows as usual. Marco Rubio and Christie might very well host Fox programs and will be frequent guests on ABC etc, but no Bernie It is important that many of Bernie's most ardent supporters are immune to the big media spin. .I think Bernie has learned not to just give unfettered access to his contributor list to the Hillary campaign and after his treatment by the DNC of Wasserman-Shultz, Hillary's agent, it certainly will not be handed over to the DNC and forgotten as Obama did. Of course the main issue for the Political Revolution is whether his 5 million contributors as well as the additional millions who voted for him and volunteered for him are just involved while the horse race is on. I suspect if Bernie and his core advisors are smart the answer is "no". Issues as access to health care, college, child care, a higher minimum wage are the type of everyday problems that can keep folks involved if they have actual hope of a real life solution for them. Again key is can the establishment through the Clintons, assuming Hillary wins coopt the issues enough.
After spending months criticizing the Super Delegates, calling the system undemocratic, now Bernie and his rabid supporters want the Super Delegates to vote for him for in spite of the popular votes... For a man who built his campaign on integrity and anti-establishment sentiments, the Bernster sure loves to be hypocritical and beg the establishment for help when he needs it
So the Democratic Party is "GOP Lite" now, glynch? Where have you been the last several years, glynch, deep in the Amazon with a satellite dish typing on a laptop? Obama has been a centrist. Not as progressive as I would like him to be, but far from being "GOP Lite," and I would say the same about the majority of Democrats in Congress, including Shumer. "GOP Lite" today would be to the right of Barry Goldwater. This is the most absurd comment in your post, glynch. Do you seriously believe Hillary and her team are going to sideline Sanders during the convention? I think the opposite. They will give him a prominent role because it is smart politics, and they aren't stupid. I have no idea what "the big talk shows" will do, except for FOX, which is an arm of the GOP. My guess is that the rest of them will have on whoever they think will give them ratings. I'll repeat that. The big talk shows, outside of FOX, will have on whoever gives them ratings. If you think otherwise, you are being delusional, with all due respect, and I do respect you. So what you are saying is that if Bernie doesn't get the nomination that he won't help the ticket win? How weird is that? I disagree. I think Hillary will give Bernie a significant role in the campaign as well as a role in the convention, assuming she wins the nomination, almost a certainty now, and assuming that Senator Sanders will accept a role. You sound like you hope he doesn't. I hope that isn't how you feel. Tip Jar bet? $20 bucks?
The inspiration for Gordon Gekko is a Bernie fan if you can believe that. His argument is what I've been saying for years when arguing for increasing minimum wage and opening lending. Poor people spend money, rich people don't. Velocity of money, look it up. Look at all of the faces on the cnbc anchors, what a joke. That's why Trump is doing so well. These folks are out of touch, they don't understand what real folks are going through. <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/XJj2kSbwpqE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
https://theintercept.com/2016/03/18/aipac-rejects-sanders-offer-to-speak-via-video-as-romney-and-gingrich-did-in-2012/
This is CNBC, they are all knowledgeable about the economy and the audience cares about how corporations are doing. The guy straight up redefined recession in front of them in order to answer a question that they posed, which caught them off guard. This was not the right interview to be talking about these things.
