Bernie Sanders 2016 Feel the Bern!

Sanders is winning 42% of the Democratic vote and his supporters think he parted the Red Sea. Caucus King would get spit roasted in the GE.

 

Promoting caucus wins is just capitalizing on momentum. It's standard campaigning.

Pretty sure Mr. Sanders would never do anything to risk a GOP victory and will use his popularity to aid and influence Ms. Clinton. Progressives will need Court appointees on their side if we are going to change election financing policies.
It's the one Branch that can't be bought.

 

Really? You're likening Jim Crow laws to the Democratic party nominating rules in 2016.

 

In that rules are made by power structures to maintain their own power and have to be broken when fairness demands it... sure, liken away.

 

The difference is that a year ago, no one was b****ing about the DNC rules. No one thought they were unfair or a problem or anything of the sort. No one was complaining about the way Wyoming wanted to split delegates.

Jim Crow was wrong regardless of who was being affected. DNC rules are only wrong, it seems, when its your candidate that suffers the short end of the stick - nevermind that he's also plenty taken advantage of the quirky rules and wouldn't even be remotely this competitive if everyone did primaries or we had an actual national primary all on one day (the ultimate in "fairness".)

The only reason Bernie even has a remote shot is because all the quirky rules that allowed him to build name recognition over time, have a lot of favorable states early, etc.

 

delete: too judgmental

 

This also goes to the heart of the problem with the Bernie campaign - he has a long history of demonstrating that he can stand on principle but is not very good at actually knowing how to affect change.

The rules of the DNC can be changed by members over time. Instead of standing to the side as an independent, perhaps if he had joined the party long ago, he and his views could have influenced how the party is run. He could have made the case against superdelegates in any of the previous elections as a senior member of the party. He chose not to - that's on him.

Bernie and his supporters are very good at identifying things that are wrong with the system (a much needed voice in our system) and at complaining about them - but they haven't shown any willingness or ability to actually find ways to change things. Bernie could have been complaining about superdelegates or Wyoming's voting structure years ago - but he wasn't interested because he chose not to be a Democrat and it didn't affect him. This is a microcosm of his approach to governing and why so many people think he won't be able to accomplish anything if elected.

 

Good post, Major. I have a lot of friends (most of my friends?) who are Bernie supporters. I am incredibly sympathetic to some of his themes.

As I've said before, I keep coming back to "what has he ever gotten done?" Politics is a grimy game of compromise to effect change. Giving great speeches on the sideline and staying pure, with no toe in the mud, is great if you want to serve as an emblem.

But to make change takes a totally different approach. That (my view of reality, and what "politics" means since the time of Aristotle), holds great sway with me.

 

That is how I see Bernie, all talk and will have be able to do very little if elected, much less than Hillary or Obama.

 

There is a difference between a person that tells you what you want to hear and someone who can get things done.

 

Many might agree with his platform but not that he is one to make that possible. Much of what I'm hearing even from Sanders supporters is that a 74 year old guy from a small state who has been a Socialist (emphasis on capital 'S') for most of his political career might not be the best guy to enact change.

The problem with that view though is if all of the candidates got equal coverage how do you know Bernie Sanders would be doing so much better? O'Malley might be doing better or Chafee with Sanders an also ran. For that matter if the argument is that the media and the party haven't been fair to all candidates why should they stop with those names? Why shouldn't they give Lyndon LaRouche or the Rent is too Damn High! guy the same amount of coverage?

I sympathize that it's not fair that the media or the party arent' giving the same amount of coverage and support to all candidates they can't though for obvious reasons.

Except that if you're arguing low turnouts consider then that one Clinton pasted Sanders in those races. If those races the turnout was even lower than 8 years ago what does that say about Sanders' success in those if he still got beat by large margins in those states this year.

Two, if you're arguing that the low turnout numbers show that Clinton's support isn't something to crow about consider that caucus turnouts are less than primary turnouts and Sanders has dominated in caucus states with less population. Another poster here earlier pointed out that the total of Sanders caucus victories are less votes than the difference between Clinton and Sanders in just FL alone.

First this is a frequent charge that Clinton is corrupted that said I've yet to see any definitive proof that there has been a quid pro quo for campaign donations. There has been a lot of speculation, implication, and accusation but a lack of specific evidence.

Next I will give credit that Sanders is more consistent and I think he's a good well meaning guy that said he is a politician and he has compromised and pandered too. He admits it when he says he compromised on the Crime Bill that people like to club Clinton with and also that he panders to his rural constituency over guns.

Everyone loves the idea of Cincinnatus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucius_Quinctius_Cincinnatus). The problem though is that the nature of the US Presidency is far far different than pre-Imperial Rome. To be willing to subject yourself to the type of scrutiny and grind just to try to get to be President and then preside over the largest economy and military in the world facing daily crisis, meanwhile with political opponents blocking most of your moves, while critics mercilessly mock you and people protest you over all sorts of things takes a certain amount of megalomania. It's not something I think any sane person would want. The idea of the accidental president, the well meaning outsider who comes in and saves the day with no other ambition, is appealing but not one that could or probably should happen. The challenges that a President faces are unlike anything that most people will experience. Just look at how much it's aged the last three occupants of the office.

Ambition and preparation are factors that should be considered when it comes to running this country and dealing with the type of threats that a president might face. Ideology and issues matter but one has to consider that the President isn't the chief legislator.

For that matter don't doubt that Sanders isn't ambitious. No one runs for president unless they have an outsized ambition.

That's speculative. Maybe, maybe not. As noted whose to say that O'malley or Webb aren't more successful. Further that still ignores that Sanders raised a ton of money and could've run more advertizing, have better targeted advertizing and outreach. Consider that in 2008 Clinton was also the early favorite while Obama the insurgent. Clinton's name recognition didn't stop Obama.

Sure it takes guts as noted it also takes an outsized ambition. Leaving that aside though this post just continues to show how much the Sanders campaign and Sanders supporters are wallowing in victimhood and blaming others. It's the media's fault. It's the DNC's fault. It's corporations fault. It's Clinton's fault.

Have you considered that maybe Sanders is a flawed candidate who hasn't run as good a campaign as he could and that his views don't enjoy as much support as his supporters think?

Sure he could still win the race isn't over. That said we've heard the same thing over and over again. Before Super Tuesday one Sanders supporters were saying the same thing. After Michigan they said the same thing. Just scroll back to earlier in this thread.

And again if Sanders did get the support of the establishment then he woudln't be the outsider and a big portion of his appeal wouldn't be there. It's oxymoronic to both trumpet about how much of an outsider you are and how bad the establishment is and then expect it to support you.

Frankly you're living up to being whiny and a crybaby. Just reread the paragraph above. You're swearing and blaming everyone but your own candidate. You're arguing that you know what you're talking about but the whole paragraph is pretty much just a regurgitation of standard talking points laced with anger.

I apologize if I sound condescending, I admit I frequently do. I have nothing against you personally and I'm sure you're a smart, well meaning guy and you've made some very cogent arguments. That said reread what you just wrote and compare it to any number of other posts here from Sanders supporters or out there social media. You're not saying anything original or deeply thought out. You're just ranting using talking points.

So in other words there is no proof of malfeasance just an opinion. Honestly this sounds like complaining about how the Spurs play because it's boring and at times seems dirty. I feel safe to say that all of us Rockets' fans would gladly trade the Spurs record of the last 20 years with the Rockets.

The purpose of an election process is to determine which person represents the interest of the people. Polls are just a snapshot. According to many polls in October 2012 Romney was beating Obama. Like in basketball there is only one stat that matters.

That is a very limited view of what qualifies left versus right. If you look at them as a whole Mondale was to the left of JFK even considering the country was more to the right in 1984 versus 1963.

Sure I give Sanders a lot of credit. He has run a remarkable campaign and if you read my earlier post I say that it was necessary and important for Clinton to have a serious challenge on the right. Further I'm fully cognizant of Clinton's weakness. I've called her slimy myself and acknowledge that she doesn't arouse passionate support.

As I said in another thread. In my lifetime, which is probably at least 20 years older than yours, I've never seen a presidential candidate that I agree with 100%. These are the candidates we have and further if we don't like any of them we don't even have to vote. When someone has asked me why I'm supporting Clinton I will say I take everything into account. She's a flawed candidate but so is Sanders. Trump and Cruz in my opinion are not viable alternatives. If I weigh Sanders flaws versus Clinton's given the what is at stake I think she is the better candidate. That she is ambitious to the point of preparing for decades, cold and calculating strike me as someone who is going to be better able to handle the grind and difficulty that the next president will face than someone who is likeable passion and ideas but not much else.

 

So you are likening it to Jim Crow.

Anyway as others have noted these rules have been in place for decades. Sanders knew them, or should've, and still decided to run as Democrat. Complaining about them now is like complaining abut the intentional foul rules in the middle of NBA games. A lot of people don't like them but the time to change them isn't in the middle of the race.

Probably so.

 

So now you're discounting African Americans Southern voters by basically saying they're ignorant?

Seriously Sanders supporters like to accuse others of condescention but how condescending is it dismiss voters in Southern states as not knowing any better?

And as noted he also voted for the Crime Bill. Yes he didn't like all the parts of it but he voted for it. In other words he compromised something that many Sanders supporters criticize Clinton for.

Can I ask you an honest question?

In your mind do you see any possibility that Sanders just isn't that good of a candidate, hasn't run as good of a campaign or that his ideas might not have as much support as you think or do you think that Sanders isn't winning just because of he is the victim of other forces?

 

It's still early for a postmortem, but if the Sanders supporters think it's 'the rules' that defeated him, consider:

1) The superdelegates did not decide the nominee and are unlikely to do so.
2) The primary schedule led with New Hampshire and Ohio -- two favorable states to him. Without New Hampshire does he even gain traction?
3) His big caucus wins in the west came after all the other non-Hillary candidates had dropped out and she appeared well on her way to victory. It's unclear if he would have won by such margins if they were held earlier -- but we can each speculate away
4) Primary schedule was decided before he even became a candidate. It was not designed for Hillary, or establishment candidates (not sure why the southern sweep would favor the establishment in general) He knew the schedule.
5) The open/closed/caucus primaries were all known ahead of time. Some benefit Hillary, some Bernie -- none designed for either. None a surprise.
6) His media coverage before January was in line with his relevance at the time -- on par with Webb, O'Malley, Chaffee etc. If you want coverage, you have to do something worthwhile other than throwing your hat in the ring.

If you truly believe the reason he's behind is because people just didn't know about him, then you have to lay most of the blame with his campaign. Jimmy Carter was an 'outsider' too, but he started maneuvering for the 1976 election in 1972 by chairing important committees with an eye to the election. President Obama was an outsider, but gained credibility in 2004 with his keynote speech at the DNC. You need a path to the election, and that path has to start well before a year out (your resume in the Senate notwithstanding). The path is harder when you're not a member of the party you intend to head and you haven't built support amount key demographics that you need (even if you believe your voting record merits that support). A Trump-like candidate might barge through anyway on name recognition and outrageousness, but Sanders was a lifer Vermont senator not well known outside his circle. That's nobody's fault but his own.

So if you think it's the 'rules', which ones? Possibly he didn't expect the support he's received, but either way, he didn't do the leg work before 2016 to give himself a shot. And that's only if you're convinced he's clearly the best candidate and his weakness was failing to get the message out soon enough.

 

Except the rule in question you are bringing up is specifically Jim Crow and not say that the NBA once didn't have a shot clock. You clearly think the current DNC rules are an injustice along the lines of Jim Crow otherwise why even mention it. Further you haven't provided any response yet to the point that Sanders knows, or at least should know, the rules yet still decided to run as a Democrat when he wasn't even one prior to more than a year ago.

Oh woe is Glynch. You've brought this up before that somehow you have a monopoly on understanding suffering.

So you don't really think Sanders is flawed since instead of expounding on your answer you go on to cite how good he has been doing. Fair enough just curious.

Of course. I do all the time. Just today in a few post above I criticize Clinton. She's certainly made some very bad mistakes. As I said though in an earlier post there hasn't been a candidate in my lifetime that I agree with 100% and these are the candidates that are running. I weigh their strengths and weaknesses in totality.