His message is resonating with people because he's a New Deal Democrat. Exhuming FDR, Truman, Kennedy, LBJ (and Eisenhower for that matter) does not make him the starry-eyed lotus-eater you characterize him as. No, he just needs to enforce the existing anti-trust laws... like when Benjamin Harrison was president or Woodrow Wilson or FDR or Ronald Reagan. You know, like we did to American Tobacco and Standard Oil.
That's the whole problem -- we pay farmers not to grow things rather than subsidizing food prices. The farmers would still get help -- the difference is, so would the people who currently feed their families microwave burritos and McDonalds value meal burgers because that's the cheapest option. Works better than food stamps. Costs less to administer and oversee and certainly hard to abuse. And the affect on health costs over time would be yuuuge. One need only to follow the money to understand why we do things the way we do. I lived in Israel for years before I realized the government did it -- I just thought it was because the farms were so near the cities that the cost of production was lower. Nope.
I like some of those guys... leaders not dividers, people who love this country not just the side of this country that agrees with them or pays them the most.
I guess NY shows that Hillary beats Bernie among people who registered as Democrats about 6 months ago in a state therebye excluding independents who according to Deaver, Bernie's campaign manager, usually break 65 to 70% for Bernie over Hillary. It is independents as well as younger voters who usually explain why almost all polls show Sanders as the stronger candidate in the general election against the Republicans. The Political Revolution and the fight to retake the Democratic Party from the Clintons and the corporate Dems continues till the convention and beyond.
But they'll tell you that calling them Bernie Bros is a "slur". I can appreciate the viewpoints of someone like glynch. He is ideologically consistent, and frankly I would be disappointed if he didn't firmly support Sanders. But most of these other folks... Let's just say that I am endlessly entertained by how folks lose all sense of objectivity and allow themselves to get sucked into the spinning vortices that are political echo chambers, be it the tea partiers on the right or the Sandernistas on the left. At some point they'll grow up. Maybe get a decent job, meet a good woman, get married and start a family. Get some responsibility. There won't be much time for hero worship and anarchistical revolution-chasing after that.
The fight to "retake" the Democratic Party? By who? By people who couldn't be bothered to register as Democrats anytime before the last 6 months, apparently?
I was thinking about this last night. Sanders did very well in caucus states and caucuses by nature are partisan and not open to other parties. So on the one hand you have Sanders supporters claiming they do better under caucus (which also happen to be less democratic, emphasis on small "d") which are more partisan than primary and then complaining they do worse in primaries where voting is restricted to party.
One other mistake that I think the Sanders camp did heading into the NY Primary is to attack Clinton more harshly. Online there has long been a lot of talk from Sanders supporters parroting some of the charges the the Right has been made against Clinton and the talk of her as being corrupted, bought and sold and etc. has been ratched up by Sanders and his supporters. Even one of Sanders own supporters publicly referred to her as a "w****". Clinton though has often done better when she is attacked and I think that played a role in this situation. Consider how her poll ratings seem to go up whenever she faces hostile Congressional hearings or how she trounced her Republican Senatorial opponent after an infamous debate where he tried to bully her. I think that played a role here when Sanders called her "unqualified." Sanders might've been better served by sticking to his earlier campaign tactics of being less harsh towards Clinton and instead emphasizing his own issues.
You ( and not you alone here) keep acting like the system in place in New York State is something cooked up by Hillary Clinton to **** over someone like Senator Sanders. The reality is that New York has had a closed primary for years and years (and years). I don't know when the registration deadlines were imposed by the State Democratic Party. Perhaps you can tell me. I'm sure Secretary Clinton's victory couldn't possibly have occurred because Democrats in New York simply like her. Ms. Clinton winning two statewide elections for United States Senator had to be a fluke. Right?
The 190 day to switch parties seems ridiculously long. But the deadline was March 25 for the previously unaffiliated -- which would include most of the sub 30 yo Bernie Supporters, unless they had a sudden change of heart from being Republicans. So either a poor ground game by Sanders in New York, or not as broad support as he needed.
Sanders supporters seem to be stunned when his appeal and fervent support amid a narrow slice of the electorate amounts to way fewer votes that Hil's far less passionate support amid a far greater slice of the electorate. That's way elections are won though, by getting more votes than the other person. Regardless of how fervent votes are - and it's more true in the general than in the primary.
glynch, I really hope to see the beyond part. America and the democratic party really need the youth, fire and the strong nudge to the left. I hope Sanders stays in the party and works to make significant change within it. I'm expecting, however, that the fervent will walk away, oil their beards, and even sit out the 2018 midterms. Bernie will go back to his independent, pure soapbox. Would soooo love to be wrong.
This has been the case all along. For some reason they have been brainwashed into thinking that this silent majority feel just like them; and drink the same koolade they drink; and it is ALWAYS something other than the reality that they DON'T have the support of the voters; that is stopping Sanders. It is extremely arrogant.
This sounds a lot like a group of voters who thought they had a 31-point lead and now have a 2-point lead. I don't think Sanders ever was going to win but it has been fun watching him make Hillary sweat. Makes you wonder what would happen if Biden ran.
Sanders polls better nationally, just not amongst Democratic Party primary voters. His appeal isn't niche -- it just doesn't appeal to the gatekeepers within the Democratic Party. It brought people like me in to vote in the Democratic primary, and it is going to lose me if they don't run candidates I like and I understand fully that they don't care. It's their party and they'll do things the way they have always done and I'll go back to not voting for them Sanders was the first primary candidate I really liked since Jerry Brown. I didn't vote for Bill Clinton in 92 or 96 because I thought he was a disingenuous sociopath, going as far as voting for Bob Dole.I live in Texas anyway so my vote in the general election for president isn't worth a warm cup of spit. They will nominate Clinton inevitably, a weak and thoroughly flawed candidate, with really high unlikability issues, who will likely win the presidency nonetheless because she would be running against an even weaker and less likable Republican. This sets her up to lose in 2020 if the GOP manages to get a candidate other than Caligula or Nero.
