I’m going to just put everything out there – which means this post will probably be all over the place.
Forgive me for repeating myself, but one of my biggest issues with Bernie Sanders is his limited platform and the way all, and I do mean all, roads lead to income equality. That just isn’t enough for me. There isn’t any acknowledgement that a rising tide does not lift all boats equally. And there definitely isn’t enough focus on the systemic hurdles that face minority groups in this scenario.
I can give examples of this, but others have done it better.
Ta-Nehisi Coates has several posts that reflect my feelings:
Last week Bernie Sanders was asked whether he was in favor of “reparations for slavery.” It is worth considering Sanders’s response in full:
No, I don’t think so. First of all, its likelihood of getting through Congress is nil. Second of all, I think it would be very divisive. The real issue is when we look at the poverty rate among the African American community, when we look at the high unemployment rate within the African American community, we have a lot of work to do.
So I think what we should be talking about is making massive investments in rebuilding our cities, in creating millions of decent paying jobs, in making public colleges and universities tuition-free, basically targeting our federal resources to the areas where it is needed the most and where it is needed the most is in impoverished communities, often African American and Latino.
For those of us interested in how the left prioritizes its various radicalisms, Sanders’s answer is illuminating. The spectacle of a socialist candidate opposing reparations as “divisive” (there are few political labels more divisive in the minds of Americans than socialist) is only rivaled by the implausibility of Sanders posing as a pragmatist. Sanders says the chance of getting reparations through Congress is “nil,” a correct observation which could just as well apply to much of the Vermont senator’s own platform. The chances of a President Sanders coaxing a Republican Congress to pass a $1 trillion jobs and infrastructure bill are also nil. Considering Sanders’s proposal for single-payer health care, Paul Krugman asks, “Is there any realistic prospect that a drastic overhaul could be enacted any time soon—say, in the next eight years? No.”
Exactly. Bernie saying that getting reparations through Congress is nil (I agree with that) ignores the fact that getting his agenda through Congress is nil, as well. Being pragmatic on this issue confuses me. It strikes me as such a divergence from his stated agenda. His use of the word “divisive” is interesting. Who is it dividing?
It’s not that I see a path to/towards reparations. I don’t. It’s that Bernie Sanders, a candidate that most agree won’t be able to enact his agenda (no matter how much we agree with it) is suddenly a pragmatist. BTW, this isn’t a post about reparations; it’s a post about why a candidate who openly calls for a revolution is suddenly citing how Congress works today. Either getting things through Congress is possible, or it’s not.
But ultimately, Johnson doesn’t reject reparations because he doesn’t think they would work, but because he doesn’t believe specific black injury through racism actually exists. He favors a “more Marxist class-oriented analysis” over the notion of treating “black poverty as fundamentally distinct from white poverty.” Johnson declines to actually investigate this position and furnish evidence—even though such evidence is not really hard to find.
Courtesy of Emily Badger, this is a chart of concentrated poverty in America—that is to say families which are both individually poor and live in poor neighborhoods. Whereas individual poverty deprives one of the ability to furnish basic needs, concentrated poverty extends out from the wallet out to the surrounding institutions—the schools, the street, the community center, the policing. If individual poverty in America is hunger, neighborhood poverty is a famine. As the chart demonstrates, the black poor are considerably more subject to famine than the white poor. Indeed, so broad is this particular famine that its reach extends out to environs that most would consider well-nourished.
[…]
In its pervasiveness, concentration, and reach across class lines, black poverty proves itself to be “fundamentally distinct” from white poverty. It would be much more convenient for everyone on the left if this were not true—that is to say if neighborhood poverty, if systemic poverty, menaced all communities equally. In such a world, one would only need to craft universalist solutions for universal problems.
But we do not live that world. We live in this one:
This chart by sociologist Patrick Sharkey quantifies the degree to which neighborhood poverty afflicts black and white families. Sociologists like Sharkey typically define a neighborhood with a poverty rate greater than 20 percent as “high poverty.” The majority of black people in this country (66 percent) live in high-poverty neighborhoods. The vast majority of whites (94 percent) do not. The effects of this should concern anyone who believes in a universalist solution to a particular affliction.
There’s a discussion to be had on these issues – one that involves more than income inequality, breaking up banks, single payer health care and free college tuition for all. We have discussed these very differences on this blog. We’ve discussed it when it comes to high-poverty, racially identifiable schools. We have discussed it when we’ve pointed out food deserts and red-lining. And I really don’t understand why Sanders applies a one size fits all to his message. Surely there’s room to address these issues as well? It’s the absence of these issues that leaves me wanting.
Moving on…
Why does Bernie Sanders remind me of Ralph Nader? It might be because he’s not a Democrat, and that may very well hurt down ticket Dems. Raising money for and supporting Dem candidates is important to me. It’s also part of the job for the nominated Head of the Party, especially if the nominee wants a chance at enacting their agenda. (BTW, there’s the electability argument in a nut shell) But it might have more to do with this comment:
That’s exactly what Ralph Nader said. How did that work out? And let’s not forget that one of the big jobs for our nominee (Head of the Party) will be to support down ticket Dem candidates. Can Sanders do this for a moderate Dem? I’m not sure since it goes against his message.
I’m also over the Progressive title contest. To many Sander’s supporters I am not a Progressive. It bothers me that this tactic is one of Sanders favorites. Maybe that’s why I hesitate? Either I’m 100% with Bernie or I’m out, complete with my Progressive label rescinded. It’s fine to debate Progressive policies. I love that! It’s wrong to debate over who really is a Progressive.
I feel the same way when it comes to women issues. Income inequality affects women (and minorities, see above) differently. Even if Bernie succeeded in enacting his agenda, women and minorities would still lag behind. Surely we can address this too? And maybe that’s why while I agree with Bernie’s message it feels incomplete.
Where exactly does the Sander’s campaign place women and minority issues? So far, they are missing, even though these issues could fit easily into his stump speeches. The fact that they’re missing really bothers me. Not kidding, this is a biggie for me. It’s what he’s not saying.
Basically, if feminism and minority issues matter one day, but not the next – that they are reduced to a distraction, a side issue, and not important enough to be addressed – I have a problem with that. These are not side issues to me. They should be part of Bernie Sanders’ message. They are important, and the fact they could be so easily inserted into Bernie’s speeches, yet aren’t, gives me pause.
If I’m leaning towards Hillary Clinton then Sanders’ supporters should try and convince me why I shouldn’t. I’m open to listening. Lord knows I’ve said it enough on here. So far, here on DL and elsewhere, you’re not convincing me. Example: Sanders’ answer during the debate on foreign policy should have generated a lot of concern. Why is he given a pass on this? His answer demonstrated a severe lack of knowledge, yet it was sorta brushed off. So, I worry. I worry that some Sanders’ supporters aren’t vetting their candidate. I worry when they brush off the “socialist” label like it will have no impact. I worry, despite his issues page, that he hasn’t had to defend or explain his positions in public on a variety of issues. I’m really uncomfortable with this.
Yesterday I wrote this comment (it relates to what I said in the paragraph above):
I know where the candidates stand on most issues (based on votes and comments) but what I don’t know is how they stand on these issues compared to one another. That’s important to me. Not only where they stand, but also how (or even if) they would prioritize these issues. If candidates say police brutality (just an example) is wrong but have no plans to address the issue then, to me, that’s a problem. See what I’m saying?
I know Bernie’s #1 issue, what I don’t know is what other issues matters to him and how he’d prioritize them. Is that really to much to ask? It obviously seems to be too much to answer. Instead, across the board, we get… pretty much everything Hillary did was bad, she hasn’t accomplished much (other than bad things), she’s a corporate shrill, gave speeches to Goldman Sachs for money, isn’t trustworthy, her voice isn’t melodious, her marriage isn’t real, judge her by her husband’s actions/policies, it’s sexist to vote for her because she’s a woman, she’s corrupt, a liar, the same as a Republican, and on and on.
So much for a policy discussion. I’m beginning to think that’s deliberate, probably because both candidates agree on more than they disagree. That’s true, btw.
Just as Sander’s lack of a good answer is a big red flag for you, Clinton’s corporate ties (which you seemed to write off, by lumping them in with a bunch of fake problems) are a huge red flag for me. We BLAST Carper and Carney and Coons (oh my) on this page for being exactly like HRC. Why?
The thing I dont get is, Sanders HAS addressed reproductive rights, police brutality, marriage equality (he was for it LONG before Clinton was.) etc. There are litteraly hundreds of hours of video from decades in congress about him keeping the same consistent positions. I think it has become pretty clear that his main goal is to level the playing field for everyone, regardless of race or gender.
No, it wont “even” everything out. What it WILL do is make a fight for equal pay actually mean something. What does that mean? I’ll tell you. A woman fights to be paid the same as a man in her position and wins. Yay! She could STILL not make enough to take care of her children. Is that really a win? serious question. Is that a win to you? If not, I dont think Sanders is your candidate. Sanders advocates higher pay for teachers and nurses… those are jobs that have a much higher percentage of women working them than men. Just because he says “teachers” and not “women”, if such a plan would go into effect, would it be any less good because his focus was on paying teachers more and lots of women just happened to be effected by it?
You’re right though. none of his policies have a chance of getting through any congress. even if the Dems take both chambers with 60+ in the senate, Carper and Crew are still there to act like republicans. I dont know HOW you get over that.
bernie should focus on the thing that will actually help him get elected. income inequality is that thing. come on too strong on black lives matter or something that can be called reparations and he weakens his appeal to a lot of voters he could get — including people who are more or less ok with those things but get tired of hearing about it. if he then wins on the income inequality issue, that will improve black and female lives more than anything hillary or a republican would do. let’s be practical. a rising tide does in fact lift all boats. it would also be practical to vote for hillary over any republican.
It’s a myth that Bernie’s not pragmatic. He’s been winning elections since the 1980s. He’s certainly won more than Hillary. This reparations issue demonstrates his pragmatism perfectly. Favoring an issue that won’t pass congress and will alienate a large portion of the electorate is not pragmatic. The rest of Sanders’s agenda is very pragmatic in that it’s resonating with voters and the goal is to get elected. I don’t understand why this confounds so many people.
Let me just copy this from my post: “BTW, this isn’t a post about reparations; it’s a post about why a candidate who openly calls for a revolution is suddenly citing how Congress works today. Either getting things through Congress is possible, or it’s not.”
Everybody got that?
But what I’m hearing here is interesting. There’s a lot of incrementalism talk when it comes to women and minority issues. Sorta like, “Once we get Bernie elected then we’ll get to those issues. We can’t now because… ?”
As far as digging through old YouTubes, not happening. He’s running a National Campaign so I’m sticking with that. And it would appear that I should given the above comments.
My biggest worry: Bernie is not being vetted beyond one issue. That needs to happen and would go a long way to getting me off the fence. If that doesn’t happen, then count me out. I don’t want a legitimate October surprise.
And I’ll point out that I haven’t written one post endorsing Clinton or downplayed her corporate ties, but people keep going there.
Like you, I have problems with the ‘one trick pony’ aspect of Bernie. Racism exists — particularly structural racism — separately from economics. So does sexism & homophobia. Rich African-Americans can be gunned down by cops, like their poor brethren. To ignore this & bring every conversation back to ‘evil Wall Street’ is both patronizing & useless. That he’s spent 25+ years in Congress & can’t rank potential threats by foreign powers shows an unwillingness to learn. Like *all* elderly Marxists, he draws clear lines for the term ‘progressive’. Anyone falling outside those parameters will be purged.
We’ve seen his like before — Henry (& George, too) Wallace, Goldwater (who wasn’t nearly as obsessive), Huey Long — men (&, yes, it really is men) who damned their parties to the wilderness.
The bottom line? This abrasive ward heeler would destroy all the progress we’ve made in the last 7 years just to ensure his own purity.
I’m now in the 6th year of fighting against single-issue zealots on the right. I’ve no sympathy for those on the left. Nope.
Bernie addresses the core issue all middle class and lower classes have to deal with, economic survival in a predatory environment where the system is rigged.
I agree Bernie is somewhat one-dimensional, and that may in fact doom his chances in the primary or the general. But he is speaking of taking back power from the 1%, which is a prospect too big to ignore.
I am hoping for the day that Hillary turns her pragmatic compromising and triangulation skills toward winning over Sanders supporters, by actually adopting and campaigning on specific issues of Bernie’s (think TPP. Glass-Steagall, too-big-to-fail banks, minimum wage, etc.). For her to do that, Sanders will have to make her sweat, which means winning a few primaries.
As a thought exercise: I prefer Bernie over Hillary, for the same reasons I would prefer Bernie over Tom Carper. But I would prefer Carper or Hillary over Cruz or any Republican.
Bernie is nothing like Nader. I don’t expect Sanders to run in the general as a spoiler. If he loses the nomination I fully expect him to campaign for Hillary.
I’ve been concerned all along about what happens to Bernie, should he make it to the general, when the real mud starts to fly. Clinton isn’t even tossing around grains of sand compared to what the Republicans will do, and I’d imagine vetting in Vermont is different than a national vetting against a powerful, negative organization.
That said, incremental change doesn’t inspire people, so I think he speaks in broad terms that carry much appeal. His focus is clear, and it has an appeal to young voters who grew up in the era of Bush negativity and decline and came of age during a recession, when the rich won and the poor lost and continue to lose, where an older generation sent THEIR friends to sacrifice in a war of choice, to fight and die to fill the pockets of Halliburton.
Ok, let me stop. I’m starting to Bern. I’m an “old” millennial, at the edge of the generation, and I truly get it. Millenials are always targeted as feeling entitled, but I think the reality is that, as a generation, they have known much struggle and negativity. There was hope in Obama so the support for him came, and now that hope for a better future has been transferred to a “new” face.
That said, I also am a politics guy and I see the risks and problems, which has prevented me from devoting myself fully to Bernie. I still have trouble envisioning him giving a speech from the Oval Office or engaging in a serious meeting with Putin about the future of the conflict in Syria. I’m still truly undecided, as I’ve said before, so I look forward to reading what others have to say here.
pandora, you cited coates at length. call it what you want, but if it looks like reparations a lot of people will reject it. those same people (assuming they are somewhere on the left) would be happy to improve conditions for everybody, bernie style. people are seeing nothing radical about fixing income inequality right now.
I stated my point wasn’t about reparations – even wrote about what I was specifically referencing.
If your point is that women and minorities should wait to be included in Bernie’s National campaign because… that won’t go over well? that’s fine. Just say so. We’ll disagree, but what else is new. 🙂
My only problem with Bernie is that he isn’t Elizabeth Warren. I betcha that many Bernie supporters, and I’m one, really wanted the progressive alternative to Hillary to be Warren.
However, this notion that Bernie will get clobbered in the general ignores what so far has once again been a disastrous campaign by the Clintons. You just can’t wish away multiple six-figure speeches to the Goldman Sachs’ of this world. And you can’t wish away the stench of how the Clinton Foundation gets its money and the hooks that the donors have on the Clintons.
Yes, Clinton fatigue is a real thing. And, um, progressive pragmatism means that Hillary will do nothing to in any way disadvantage the corporate mega-donors who have taken them from their so-called ‘poor as church mice’ meme they created upon leaving the White House to the dirty with corporate wealth overlords they have become.
I get it. I don’t like the corporatism either. But here’s the deal, Bernie supporters: Vet. Your. Candidate. Don’t let the first time he’s tested be by the Republicans. Could he withstand the attacks? I HAVE NO IDEA, and neither do you. Is what I’m asking for really that outrageous?
I’m also not feeling the Bern. Call it one-trick, one dimension, whatever. My 2 major reasons:
1. No interest or perceived ability to act in the foreign policy or national security arena. We are hiring not just a CEO but a Commander In Chief. At 3AM I just don’t want Sanders answering the phone.
2. Free tuition ($75 billion, not adjusted for tuition cost increases, Healthcare ($3 trillion delta over 10 years between spending and revenue – after all tax increases). In short – not just Congressional obstacles, but simply not affordable without massive increases in taxes, including increases (per Sanders) on the middle class. And that’s just two elements of his plans.
Even if I thought he was electable, I would not choose him, unless I had to choose between him and Cruz (Anybody But Cruz). Though if Sanders is the candidate, I might just sit out the general.
pandora: yes, there will be some waiting. that’s true no matter who wins. the wait with sanders will be shorter than with a republican, while hilllary doesn’t bring what we need on the economic front. i do wish i knew more about bernie’s foreign-policy ideas. i know more about hillary’s and i’m not crazy about them.
The one-trick is the most important trick: End economic inequality, restore fairness to the economy.
What Hillary Clinton suggests with her ‘progressive pragmatism’ is that such a goal is not attainable, therefore it is foolish to pursue it. Music to the ears of Goldman Sachs. Which is a disqualifier for me.
Oh, and in terms of vetting your candidate, maybe someone should have vetted those six-figure speeches that Hillary gave to her corporate overlords. Instead, we’ve got the Nixonian ‘I’ll release mine if you release yours’. Which is the kind of crap that’s bothered me about the Clintons since Bill was in the White House. You don’t think that drip-drip-drip will follow her throughout her campaign?
BTW, Bill is not the secret weapon he once was. His screed against Sanders supporters has a ‘get off my lawn’ quality to it. The rascally charm is absent.
You don’t think that drip-drip-drip will follow her throughout her campaign?”
I would LOVE for Republicans to start using Goldman Sachs as a poster child for everything that is wrong with politics and the economy. Maybe all that tea party populist rage could be focused in the right direction for once.
Why is it when I ask why I should support Bernie I get a list of everything awful about Hillary?
OK. Fine. Let’s go with Hillary is awful. Now what?
Well, I now know that incrementalism is okay. That surprised me. But I’m the one who’s always been okay with doing things in steps. Hello? ACA. I just thought, from previous threads, that this was a bad thing – that no one could get excited about this.
Hmmm… Drip, drip, drip. OK (I actually expected the problems you listed for Clinton). Now tell me, what are Bernie’s drip, drip, drips?
Here are a few issues I see:
1. One issue candidate.
That will only get you so far, and when I read comments on here about certain groups having to wait to have their concerns addressed because some people “get tired of hearing about it” it stops me cold.
2. Raising taxes
I’m just going to go with what most Americans (not all) feel about taxes and say this will be a problem. I’m fine with my taxes being raised for Bernie’s position, but I’ve accepted I’m not even close to the majority. (I know! I can’t believe it either!)
3. Socialist
Sure the times are a-changing, but have they changed enough? I don’t know, but I doubt it. I think this will be a liability, but I’ll not go as far as claim it’s a death knell. But I don’t really know.
4. Issues outside of income equality
I’ll just copy my previous thoughts here: I worry, despite his issues page, that he hasn’t had to defend or explain his positions in public on a variety of issues. I’m really uncomfortable with this. How does he handle these other issues. I don’t know.
5. Foreign Policy
His answers the other night were disturbing. I’m sure he knows he needs to fix this ASAP. How will he fix it? I don’t know. Hopefully he’ll do a FP speech.
Let’s just start with these 5 points and begin the vetting process. Now remember, I’ve said above that Hillary is awful – I don’t really agree with that, but we’ll start with that premise. OK? Sell me your candidate without mentioning Hillary Clinton and address my 5 points of concern. Thanks!
You fix the absence of foreign policy and national security chops by engaging in practice of the same. The question is will a world on fire wait for it and just what will he do to practice the art and science?
.
And no, the “The one-trick is (not) the most important trick:” There are multiple most important tricks and they won’t wait until economic equality is achieved (whatever his timeframe is for achieving it). The President juggles and puts out fires simultaneously with crafting foreign and domestic policy, creating humane solutions to illegal immigration and immigrants, shortlisting SC nominees, stroking Congress to find a tiny bit of common ground so that he/she can put flesh on the bones of those policies that they sold to the voters and world and then convince everybody that the final result was the intent all along.
The most important trick indeed! The entire job is most important period! If anyone is buying Sanders because of the single trick, they must live in a different world than I. I’d like to at least visit and see the wondrous edifice that everyone is worshiping.
Because he would dedicate his administration to eliminating the inequity that has led to the disparity between the 1% and everybody else. He would go after the banks and those who have benefited by, and who have participated in, the current rigging of the system. Yes, I believe that we have essentially become an oligarchy, and I believe that a sharp change in policy is needed to restore democracy to our democracy.
I might point out that a message of economic populism could well appeal to voters who are gravitating toward the Trumps and Cruzes of this cycle.
As to this: “I worry, despite his issues page, that he hasn’t had to defend or explain his positions in public on a variety of issues. I’m really uncomfortable with this”, that’s nothing that Hillary’s bud Deborah Wasserman Schultz can’t cure with a few more debates. Just one more process that has been rigged to an extent.
As to ‘addressing my 5 points of concern’, I don’t care to do that any more than to ask you to ‘address my (fill in the blank) points of concern’ about Hillary. That’s just gotcha stuff.
OK, Dave, I’ll bite. What the bleep would Hillary do to close the income gap? You simply can’t look at her and the Clintons and believe that they will change anything in a significant fashion. At least I can’t. They’re bought and paid for.
As to foreign policy, are you comfortable with Clinton’s hawkish views? I’m not. Yes, we need to hear more from Sanders. But appointing people to key posts that share his less hawkish views on foreign policy would, I think, help us stay away from too much muscular interventionism.
One more foreign policy point. Who on the R side is gonna school Bernie? Trump, Cruz, or Rubio? Bernie wins against any of them and their insane statements.
I think you belittle that “one issue” and people’e ability to see just how important it is, and how “economic justice” translates into other kinds of justice. Just because he doesn’t spell it out, doesn’t mean it isnt there. And again, you dont have to go all youtuby, but answers and positions on everything from marriage equality to sentencing reform are there. It also shows decades of consistency.
Perhaps that is a sign of the generational divide in his support. Younger people get our news and information differently. Thats my answer for 1 and 4.
2. it will be a tough sell, no doubt. but apparently, the people voting to have their taxes raised are most entitled and narcissistic generation ever… so it seems people can be convinced.
3. again… generation thing. Socialism is only a dirty word to the uninformed (possibly under educated?) Let’s call Bernie ahead of his time on this one. You will see more democratic socialist candidates for office, and it could start to be a problem for the Democrats who what to hold on to their big bank roots.
5. I got nothin. I can say i bet her has more experience when it comes to understanding foreign policy than Obama did…. manly because his career in congress is much longer. I think it was a poorly put together answer, and if he gets another shot, I hope for better. You can probably assume he wont be starting any wars.
Sorry for going all ‘in your face’. I’ve held my fire on the blog for some time on this.
As in the belittling tone of the we’re ‘committing political suicide’ by supporting Sanders stuff. Then watching the second abysmal campaign by the Inevitable One start to unravel. Just had to unleash some steam. Anger, actually.
You know, if Biden had run, he’d probably be coasting to victory right now…
Some of Hillary’s Bleeping Plans To Close The Income Gap
Raise the minimum wage
Fight wage theft
Encourage companies to share profits with employees via tax credits
Strengthen the ACA
Support unions and collective bargaining
Reform the tax code so that the wealthiest pay their fair share
Enacting the Buffett Rule
Expand early learning
Invest in students and teachers
Expand overtime
Eliminate the carried interest loophole
Reform capital gains taxes to encourage long term investing
Implement a new college compact to ensure students can attend community college for free
Expand AmeriCorps and build on the current Segal education award
Permanently extend the American Opportunity Tax Credit ensuring middle class families
Nice cut ‘n paste, Dave. Would you like me to do the same for Sanders’ proposals?
The only way that anything on Hillary’s list is ‘doable’, barring a massive shift in Congress, is if/when she gives away even more stuff than Bill did to the corporations and all those NAFTA supporters. Which, not coincidentally, had an awful lot to do with how we all ended up in the 99%. No, I don’t trust either of them. If you’d like, I can pony up some stuff about the Clinton Foundation. Maybe you’ll come around as well.
Sure go ahead and paste the Sanders plan and let’s see how much is doable. If you don’t think Clinton’s is doable I can’t wait to see how you spin Sanders’ plan.
I don’t like Clinton and I don’t vote in the primary, but if I did I would vote my head not my heart because I don’t think we can afford the luxury of Sanders’ idealism or a GOP administration. If you think it’s safe bet then go ahead and roll the dice.
Coming late to this party, Pandora, but here’s two cents
1. One-issue candidate: remember “it’s the economy, stupid” for Bill Clinton in 1992, when he had absolutely no foreign policy chops and was running against a guy who had actually been a wartime president. My perception right now is that the only people really, really concerned about foreign policy in this election (as a statistical reality) are the people who want to build a wall and carpet-bomb mosques. Trump, Cruz, etc., already have them locked up; they go for neither Sanders nor Clinton.
2. Raising taxes. It killed Walter Mondale and it arguably helped cost G H W Bush a second term, but … this is a different time, and people are starting to talk seriously about how we are going to pay for things. The problem with raising taxes is that most politicians don’t sell the sizzle–we need ten cents more per gallon to fix the roads does not sizzle. We need higher taxes so that your children can go to college without you or them taking on six-figure debt does. And that Obamacare consultant was right way back when: most people can’t and don’t do the math.
3. Socialist? Hell, Trump just called Jeb a “pussy,” said he could shoot people if he wanted, and encouraged his supporters to beat up protesters. Plus, if it’s Trump, he’s a hell of a lot more socialist than most GOPers. Played correctly, I think Sanders could not convince Trump’s voters to go for him, but instead to just stay home, which is just as good. Besides, they will call Hillary a socialist, too.
4. Issues outside of income inequality. Fair point. But what Trump has tapped into is that the angry voters (who may actually vote this year) only needs 1 or 2 issues to motivate them, and if Sanders is the nominee against Trump, here’s the thing: he will get 10-15 million additional votes just from people voting to keep Trump out. And that alone is close to 30% of what he needs to win.
5. Foreign policy. Personally, I have not seen a candidate on either side who is not a disaster on foreign policy, Hillary included. She has the safety of a middle-of-the-road consensus bureaucrat leader who will continue (as Bernie will, and as even Trump or Cruz will) to allow the military-corporate complex to call the shots. At her best Hillary touches the “competent” line in foreign policy, but nobody running today can do inspiring.
I agree on your substantive points that Bernie hasn’t fleshed it out (although the thought of a man his age … never mind), but I just don’t think it matters as much this year. I think it is another “it’s the economy, stupid” year, and Bernie has better sound bites on that one issue than he does. Give him a running mate with even minimal foreign policy chops and all bets are off.
Bernie voted against the Iraq War, the Patriot Act and the bailouts.
Wants to break up big banks.
Wants to raise the min. wage to $15/hr.
He has thus far refuse SuperPAC money.
Wants to legalize marijuana.
Wants to put an end to the death penalty.
Supports medicare for all.
Supports tuition for all.
Bernie has been outspoken on all of these issues.
Do I need to point out where Hillary disagrees with Bernie on these issues?
The one thing that Bernie has over Hillary is authenticity. Hillary rarely seems sincere and is always late to the party. 3 days to issue a statement on Black Lives Matter? Somebody needs to up their talking points/focus group testing “tell me what to say” game.
I like Bernie. I’ve been quite clear on that. I understand the reasons for voting for him.
As we were watching the results come in last night I said to my husband, “We have two great candidates.” He replied, “We might have two fatally flawed candidates.” Oh my. I asked him why he thought that. He replied, “I can see ways to easily take them both out.”
That was depressing. Hope he just had a bad day, because… sheesh, what a bummer.
Sad to say, I agree with him. I think that’s why I have and continue to hedge. There are downsides to both. What scares me the most is the ascent of Kasich. He has crossover appeal because people worry more about personality and positivity than policy. He’s a right wing conservative like the rest of them, but wraps it in optimism and practicality. Trump also could have cross over appeal, as much as I hate to say it. Taxing the rich, limiting free trade to save jobs, and good old fashioned xenophobia go a long way among many. And, if Bloomberg jumps in….I’d rather not think about it.
All the more reason that we unite behind whoever gets the nomination enthusiastically; however, it is also good that, at least for a while, both are seriously challenged by one another to work out the kinks.
Slight correction: Either would be vulnerable to a good GOP candidate. As there are no good GOP candidates, either Democrat is less vulnerable than would normally be the case.
Hillary’s most substantial advantage is on foreign policy. That makes Bernie more vulnerable than she is should another terror attack take place before November. If you are worried about the GOP attack machine, it’s logical to choose Hillary.
I guess I’m not as worried about the smear machine as I used to be, because I think it’s losing some potency.
I don’t assume a rational electorate any more. Trump actually won votes. I also think Kasich is a decently strong candidate if he can pull ahead. We’ll see.
If Hillary hits Bernie on foreign policy, that will only remind voters of Hillary’s pro-intervention views. I’m not sure that’s a positive thing for Hillary. It will probably run up her numbers in the older demographic, but hurt her with the younger.
Take this for what it’s worth. (Hint: Nothing) I was just texting with my friend – K Street lawyer, life-long Republicans, mega-rich, lives in Vienna, VA and asked who they were supporting. I was expecting Kasich. Here’s what they said:
“Everyone we know wants to move to Canada if Trump is elected. Boy, there’s just no viable choice this election, other than Hillary. What a circus.”
Yeah, that surprised me. Like I said, this is interesting but doesn’t really prove anything.
Also in that category: Two close friends, one a stockbroker, the other a surgeon, both longtime GOP voters, tell me they are voting for Sanders. Just anecdotal, but these are the same things I heard from such people about Markell and Obama.
On the other hand, in conservative circles (where Trump has not been a darling yet, since he is not a social conservative), I’m starting to hear in the wake of Bernie’s showing in NH that they have to unite behind Trump sooner rather than later to keep the “socialists” out of the White House. So it works both ways–some people are starting to dump Cruz for Trump because electability (!?).
But I think you have not touched on Hillary’s greatest hurdle, and the one that Bernie is currently killing her on. She wears at the same time the mantle of “its her turn,” “inevitability,” and “she chokes in a tough fight.” Hillary’s campaign did as much in 2008 to defeat itself as it could have; not saying Obama did not run a brilliant campaign (he did), but it could have gone down to the convention closer than Reagan/Ford in 1976 if Hillary had been smarter.
Almost everybody is waiting for Hillary to start floundering. Bringing out Bill at a late date in NH was an important tactical error, because she brought him out and Bernie toasted her. If memory serves, she didn’t trot him out in 2008 until South Carolina. Until yesterday everybody was talking about how if Hillary closed below 10 points Bernie was done … and then he won by more than 20.
The other curious thing about this election so far is that while party outsiders are currently dominating, campaigning methodologies seem to have taken a giant step backward. I’m seeing nothing like the innovations in social media piloted by Obama in 2008, and certainly no “50-state strategy” by anybody (although Hillary could have that and I could have missed it).
Instead we are seeing a return to decades old rallies and staged events, which Trump has revolutionized. Calling Jeb a pussy or suggesting that protestors should be beaten has had a very intended consequence: these incidents have changed Trump’s rallies from political events into legit news events, and now challenged his supporters at each stop to participate in something that will get them and their candidate earned media.
(Of course this carries the problem of continuing to exceed expectations. By mid-March Trump will no longer be building a wall for immigration, he will have discovered that mine fields are cheaper. You heard it here first.)
Final note: if it is Trump v Sanders in the General, Trump won’t run against the programs Bernie is offering. He won’t scoff at free college tuition. He will simply promise that he, as a capitalist (ha!) and deal-maker he can get you these things better and cheaper: “Bernie the socialist can only get you free tuition through higher taxes; Trump the capitalist can give you free tuition and LOWER taxes at the same time!”
I read that article a few days ago. It is thought-provoking and makes several good points. Bernie Sanders voted for the Clinton crime bill. Does that matter?
I could paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld’s quote about going into battle with the army one has, but I totally hate that guy. But we need to be mindful of which Democratic candidate has any chance of winning the greatest share of independent voters and able to motivate minority voters to show up on election day. And it sounds to me only Hillary is capable of delivering that. And what piece of Sanders’ agenda is she going to dismiss because she has friends and donors on Wall St?
The part where their power gets truncated, the system making them obscenely wealthy gets changed, and they get arrested for illegally ruining the lives of millions.
Pandora… It does matter. So let’s look at it in greater detail.
In speaking on the House floor ahead of the Crime Bill vote Mr Sanders said this (13 April 1994):
“Thank you. Mr. Chairman, let me begin with a profound remark: Two plus two equals four.
In other words, there is a logical and rational process called cause and effect. In terms of Newtonian physics, that means that every action causes an equal and opposite reaction. In other words, Mr. Speaker, there are reasons why things happen, as controversial as that statement may be.
A farmer neglects to tend and care for his fields—it is likely that the crop will fail.
A company neglects to invest in research and development—it is likely that the company will not be profitable.
In a similar way, Mr. Speaker, a society which neglects, which oppresses and which disdains a very significant part of its population—which leaves them hungry, impoverished, unemployed, uneducated, and utterly without hope, will, through cause and effect, create a population which is bitter, which is angry, which is violent, and a society which is crime-ridden. This is the case in America, and it is the case in countries throughout the world.
Mr. Speaker, how do we talk about the very serious crime problem in America without mentioning that we have the highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized world, by far, with 22 percent of our children in poverty and 5 million who are hungry today? Do the Members think maybe that might have some relationship to crime? How do we talk about crime when this Congress is prepared, this year, to spend 11 times more for the military than for education; when 21 percent of our kids drop out of high school; when a recent study told us that twice as many young workers now earn poverty wages as 10 years ago; when the gap between the rich and the poor is wider, and when the rate of poverty continues to grow? Do the members think that might have some relationship to crime?
Mr. Speaker, it is my firm belief that clearly, there are some people in our society who are horribly violent, who are deeply sick and sociopathic, and clearly these people must be put behind bars in order to protect society from them. But it is also my view that through the neglect of our Government and through a grossly irrational set of priorities, we are dooming tens of millions of young people to a future of bitterness, misery, hopelessness, drugs, crime, and violence. And Mr. Speaker, all the jails in the world, and we already imprison more people per capita than any other country, and all of the executions in the world, will not make that situation right. We can either educate or electrocute. We can create meaningful jobs, rebuilding our society, or we can build more jails. Mr. Speaker, let us create a society of hope and compassion, not one of hate and vengeance.”
Meanwhile, commenting on said Crime Bill, Mrs Clinton said…
“They are not just gangs of kids anymore. They are often the kinds of kids that are called ‘super-predators.’ No conscience, no empathy. We can talk about why they ended up that way, but first we have to bring them to heel.”
I suppose you see the difference here as starkly as I do.
This also indicates quite clearly that Sanders does compromise and can be pragmatic. But of course Mr Trump has everyone’s heads full of fear and pants full of shit to actually look at these details.
I see all of this. I am not anti-Sanders. I love his politics. I would just like him vetted. He hasn’t been, and that worries me. He voted for the crime bill. I get why he did it, but I worry about a John Kerry moment – this time, I was against it before I was for it.
I was watching Chris Hayes last night, and this segment probably speaks best for where I’m coming from. If you don’t want to sit through the entire segment go to approx. the 4 minute mark. BTW, I agree with every criticism leveled at Hillary in this segment called: What Should Hillary Clinton Do Now?
Her fumbling isn’t helping her – I can’t believe she didn’t learn from 2008, but her (or anyone!) not going after Sanders isn’t helping him. I’m fine with supporting Sanders, but I’m really concerned about what he’ll face in the general. (I’m concerned for her as well.) Now is the time to get any nonsense out of the way, and that just isn’t happening. I keep thinking… what if the Rev. Jeremiah Wright nonsense hadn’t come up until October 2008?
I try to avoid cable news at all costs so if you’ll forgive me I’m skipping the MSNBC clip.
Question. You keep saying Sanders hasn’t been “vetted.” Vetted by whom? Every time I read that I just assume you mean don’t mean “vetted.” You mean that the shadowy hit machines haven’t pulled the Swift Boat routine and discovered that Sanders once wore a Che Guevara beret to an orgy in 1973.
Perhaps they haven’t, yet, but I fail to see how the fact that he hasn’t to date been viciously slandered should influence your support.
As far as actual vetting, everyone knows where he stands. There’s a very, very long public record. So let’s not pretend he’s some mystery man who just popped up on the scene like Obama when in fact he’s the opposite.
So we know how he’ll handle attacks coming his way?
That’s my point. I need to see him defend his positions and turn them into a win. He’s going to need to do that – so if he stumbles he has time to regroup and fix it. He’s going to have to convince people that raising taxes is a good plan (I agree that it is). He’s going to have to convince people that “socialist” isn’t a bad word. He’s going to have to convince people that free college for all and the expense that goes with it is worth it. I’m not saying he can’t do it. I think he can, but I have no idea how he would.
I hate that fear plays a big part in our elections, but it does. How do we put those fears to rest for those not already on board with Bernie’s agenda?
(And I would hope you would go to my link. I always go to yours because I think what you link to matters.)
BTW, I’m not really comfortable in the role of devil’s advocate, but somebody has to do it. 😉
The argument that we don’t know how a candidate will handle an undefined attack at an unknown moment in future seems pretty weak to me.
It seems to me that all the candidates are going to need to convince people of conclusions and positions that heretofore have been unconvincing. Mr Sanders is far from unique in this sense.
More generally it seems that some people are contorting themselves to argue that Sanders is a man of mystery with wild new ideas when this is not the case.
Democratic Socialism isn’t a new untested concept. We do it in the US to a great extent (Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, VA, public schools, Fire Departments, etc.) and it’s implemented in all industrialised countries to an even greater extent. This argument that it’s some strange, novel, untested and foreign concept is plainly not true.
OK, maybe it’s just me. If this doesn’t concern Bernie supporters then maybe I shouldn’t be concerned with upcoming attacks and how Bernie will handle them.
I can see major pitfalls for both candidates – and have said so. Both concern me, but I only ever see one side’s problems (which are very real) being pointed out. But maybe you guys are right. There aren’t really any pitfalls for Bernie that he can’t handle. (God, I really hope you guys are right about that.)
@pandora: Please keep in mind that your actual vote in this is meaningless. When I say I support Bernie, I don’t mean I’ll actually vote for him. I don’t bother with our presidential primary, which is thisclose to meaningless, and Delaware will go for the Dem in the general no matter what.
The Green Party will get my actual vote, which I treat as an opportunity to vote for a third party — any third party, but generally the Greens.
And yes, the Republicans will attack and oppose either one. That’s why I don’t base my vote on who will best counter GOP attacks. I remember John Kerry too well.
Perhaps I can be a little clearer. Sanders may indeed need to potentially deal with some unforeseen challenge or slander or smear campaign or hatchet-job. Nobody knows if it’ll come, what it’ll be if it does come, and how he’ll handle it. I certainly don’t.
This is true for all candidates. It has always been and will always be. How this is a fear for Sanders candidacy specifically, I haven’t the slightest idea. Seems like a strange boogey-man argument to me. I don’t scare easily and I am certainly not going to turn my back on my political views based on some shadowy undefined potential situation. It’s a very strange position, in my view.
There’s plenty of reason to believe that is true. She’s survived every scurrilous bit of the VRWC crap thrown at her for 20+ years (including surviving charges of killing Vice Foster)and consistently ends up near the top of Most Admired polls.
Since we don’t know (and can’t know) what the details of some future attack would be we have no idea how well it would be addressed.
How factual is it? How credible are the people making the attack – are they anonymous? Is it germane to politics and government or is it personal? How close to the election is it? Will the response be obviously focus group tested and lawyerly (in other words overly off-putting)? Will there be time to research different responses?
It humors me to read so much conjecture based on the assumption that the next unknown thing will be like the previous known thing. Very, very strange line of argument.
I could argue, for example, that since Sanders is generally seen as more sincere and less calculating, he’d be better equipped to handle an attack. Further that HRC is prone to overwrought, focus group tested arguments and hence seems more untrustworthy, unctuous and sneaky. I could make that argument and it’s just as valid as the argument that HRC is better battle-tested.
Bottom line is that this argument is very, very weak indeed and I certainly would be very uncomfortable making it, as I would hope all of you would be as well.
(I think using a “Most Admired” Gallup poll as an argument speaks for itself.)
He ran for president once before, and was selected by mainstream Democrats over Howard Dean because those Democrats thought his military experience immunized him from the typical Democrats-are-weak nonsense. It turned out exactly the opposite way.
It’s a demonstration of how foolish it is to pick a candidate because his or her position cannot be attacked.
I don’t get your position. If you’re trying to claim we shouldn’t look at history, you’re probably on thin ice. Hillary has a track record on responding to fierce attacks; Bernie does not. Case closed.
And then there’s that… 🙂 As far as my argument, see above.
Once you start this bizarre arguments anyone can go anywhere with it, as Geez just did.
One could argue that in 2007 Obama had no experience on the national stage and no history dealing with the slander and attack. He was an unknown entity. Yet here we are after two terms of BHO.
It’s a very dumb argument. Sanders has been a politician on the national level for over 25 years. The entire discussion is extremely odd.
Obama didn’t have any experience on the national stage and no history (except in Chicago, which is its own ecology) of dealing with the VRWC machine. I remember quite vividly (and alot of worry happened right on this blog) about the crap being thrown at him — especially since the expectation was that he wouldn’t be subject to the same fire that Clinton would be. It isn’t hard in retrospect to see how *well* it was all handled (and he continues to handle)in spite of not having a long form birth certificate.
The thing about those VRWC attacks isn’t about taking anyone out as a first objective. It is about impeaching your credibility and authority with the folks who take their cue from the usual media bullshitters. The VRWC destruction pointed at Bill Clinton was exactly the reason why Toni Morrison pointed her infamous metaphor at Bill Clinton. And why no Democratic President can ever expect to be treated any differently.
Sanders may have been a politician at the edges of national consciousness for 25 years, but he has not had the full fire of the conservative wurlitzer pointed at him. He may or may not be able to survive it, but anyone who claims that this isn’t something to worry about isn’t paying attention.
Just as Sander’s lack of a good answer is a big red flag for you, Clinton’s corporate ties (which you seemed to write off, by lumping them in with a bunch of fake problems) are a huge red flag for me. We BLAST Carper and Carney and Coons (oh my) on this page for being exactly like HRC. Why?
The thing I dont get is, Sanders HAS addressed reproductive rights, police brutality, marriage equality (he was for it LONG before Clinton was.) etc. There are litteraly hundreds of hours of video from decades in congress about him keeping the same consistent positions. I think it has become pretty clear that his main goal is to level the playing field for everyone, regardless of race or gender.
No, it wont “even” everything out. What it WILL do is make a fight for equal pay actually mean something. What does that mean? I’ll tell you. A woman fights to be paid the same as a man in her position and wins. Yay! She could STILL not make enough to take care of her children. Is that really a win? serious question. Is that a win to you? If not, I dont think Sanders is your candidate. Sanders advocates higher pay for teachers and nurses… those are jobs that have a much higher percentage of women working them than men. Just because he says “teachers” and not “women”, if such a plan would go into effect, would it be any less good because his focus was on paying teachers more and lots of women just happened to be effected by it?
You’re right though. none of his policies have a chance of getting through any congress. even if the Dems take both chambers with 60+ in the senate, Carper and Crew are still there to act like republicans. I dont know HOW you get over that.
bernie should focus on the thing that will actually help him get elected. income inequality is that thing. come on too strong on black lives matter or something that can be called reparations and he weakens his appeal to a lot of voters he could get — including people who are more or less ok with those things but get tired of hearing about it. if he then wins on the income inequality issue, that will improve black and female lives more than anything hillary or a republican would do. let’s be practical. a rising tide does in fact lift all boats. it would also be practical to vote for hillary over any republican.
It’s a myth that Bernie’s not pragmatic. He’s been winning elections since the 1980s. He’s certainly won more than Hillary. This reparations issue demonstrates his pragmatism perfectly. Favoring an issue that won’t pass congress and will alienate a large portion of the electorate is not pragmatic. The rest of Sanders’s agenda is very pragmatic in that it’s resonating with voters and the goal is to get elected. I don’t understand why this confounds so many people.
Let me just copy this from my post: “BTW, this isn’t a post about reparations; it’s a post about why a candidate who openly calls for a revolution is suddenly citing how Congress works today. Either getting things through Congress is possible, or it’s not.”
Everybody got that?
But what I’m hearing here is interesting. There’s a lot of incrementalism talk when it comes to women and minority issues. Sorta like, “Once we get Bernie elected then we’ll get to those issues. We can’t now because… ?”
As far as digging through old YouTubes, not happening. He’s running a National Campaign so I’m sticking with that. And it would appear that I should given the above comments.
My biggest worry: Bernie is not being vetted beyond one issue. That needs to happen and would go a long way to getting me off the fence. If that doesn’t happen, then count me out. I don’t want a legitimate October surprise.
And I’ll point out that I haven’t written one post endorsing Clinton or downplayed her corporate ties, but people keep going there.
Like you, I have problems with the ‘one trick pony’ aspect of Bernie. Racism exists — particularly structural racism — separately from economics. So does sexism & homophobia. Rich African-Americans can be gunned down by cops, like their poor brethren. To ignore this & bring every conversation back to ‘evil Wall Street’ is both patronizing & useless. That he’s spent 25+ years in Congress & can’t rank potential threats by foreign powers shows an unwillingness to learn. Like *all* elderly Marxists, he draws clear lines for the term ‘progressive’. Anyone falling outside those parameters will be purged.
We’ve seen his like before — Henry (& George, too) Wallace, Goldwater (who wasn’t nearly as obsessive), Huey Long — men (&, yes, it really is men) who damned their parties to the wilderness.
The bottom line? This abrasive ward heeler would destroy all the progress we’ve made in the last 7 years just to ensure his own purity.
I’m now in the 6th year of fighting against single-issue zealots on the right. I’ve no sympathy for those on the left. Nope.
Bernie addresses the core issue all middle class and lower classes have to deal with, economic survival in a predatory environment where the system is rigged.
I agree Bernie is somewhat one-dimensional, and that may in fact doom his chances in the primary or the general. But he is speaking of taking back power from the 1%, which is a prospect too big to ignore.
I am hoping for the day that Hillary turns her pragmatic compromising and triangulation skills toward winning over Sanders supporters, by actually adopting and campaigning on specific issues of Bernie’s (think TPP. Glass-Steagall, too-big-to-fail banks, minimum wage, etc.). For her to do that, Sanders will have to make her sweat, which means winning a few primaries.
As a thought exercise: I prefer Bernie over Hillary, for the same reasons I would prefer Bernie over Tom Carper. But I would prefer Carper or Hillary over Cruz or any Republican.
Bernie is nothing like Nader. I don’t expect Sanders to run in the general as a spoiler. If he loses the nomination I fully expect him to campaign for Hillary.
I’ve been concerned all along about what happens to Bernie, should he make it to the general, when the real mud starts to fly. Clinton isn’t even tossing around grains of sand compared to what the Republicans will do, and I’d imagine vetting in Vermont is different than a national vetting against a powerful, negative organization.
That said, incremental change doesn’t inspire people, so I think he speaks in broad terms that carry much appeal. His focus is clear, and it has an appeal to young voters who grew up in the era of Bush negativity and decline and came of age during a recession, when the rich won and the poor lost and continue to lose, where an older generation sent THEIR friends to sacrifice in a war of choice, to fight and die to fill the pockets of Halliburton.
Ok, let me stop. I’m starting to Bern. I’m an “old” millennial, at the edge of the generation, and I truly get it. Millenials are always targeted as feeling entitled, but I think the reality is that, as a generation, they have known much struggle and negativity. There was hope in Obama so the support for him came, and now that hope for a better future has been transferred to a “new” face.
That said, I also am a politics guy and I see the risks and problems, which has prevented me from devoting myself fully to Bernie. I still have trouble envisioning him giving a speech from the Oval Office or engaging in a serious meeting with Putin about the future of the conflict in Syria. I’m still truly undecided, as I’ve said before, so I look forward to reading what others have to say here.
pandora, you cited coates at length. call it what you want, but if it looks like reparations a lot of people will reject it. those same people (assuming they are somewhere on the left) would be happy to improve conditions for everybody, bernie style. people are seeing nothing radical about fixing income inequality right now.
I’m not feeling the Bern either.
I was an avid supporter of Eugene McCarthy, George McGovern, Ted Kennedy…
Bern is just not up there. He’s just not credible when contrasted with Hillary. She has accomplished so much and has done so well.
That said, I do hope she pick him as her running mate.
I stated my point wasn’t about reparations – even wrote about what I was specifically referencing.
If your point is that women and minorities should wait to be included in Bernie’s National campaign because… that won’t go over well? that’s fine. Just say so. We’ll disagree, but what else is new. 🙂
My only problem with Bernie is that he isn’t Elizabeth Warren. I betcha that many Bernie supporters, and I’m one, really wanted the progressive alternative to Hillary to be Warren.
However, this notion that Bernie will get clobbered in the general ignores what so far has once again been a disastrous campaign by the Clintons. You just can’t wish away multiple six-figure speeches to the Goldman Sachs’ of this world. And you can’t wish away the stench of how the Clinton Foundation gets its money and the hooks that the donors have on the Clintons.
Yes, Clinton fatigue is a real thing. And, um, progressive pragmatism means that Hillary will do nothing to in any way disadvantage the corporate mega-donors who have taken them from their so-called ‘poor as church mice’ meme they created upon leaving the White House to the dirty with corporate wealth overlords they have become.
I get it. I don’t like the corporatism either. But here’s the deal, Bernie supporters: Vet. Your. Candidate. Don’t let the first time he’s tested be by the Republicans. Could he withstand the attacks? I HAVE NO IDEA, and neither do you. Is what I’m asking for really that outrageous?
I’m also not feeling the Bern. Call it one-trick, one dimension, whatever. My 2 major reasons:
1. No interest or perceived ability to act in the foreign policy or national security arena. We are hiring not just a CEO but a Commander In Chief. At 3AM I just don’t want Sanders answering the phone.
2. Free tuition ($75 billion, not adjusted for tuition cost increases, Healthcare ($3 trillion delta over 10 years between spending and revenue – after all tax increases). In short – not just Congressional obstacles, but simply not affordable without massive increases in taxes, including increases (per Sanders) on the middle class. And that’s just two elements of his plans.
Even if I thought he was electable, I would not choose him, unless I had to choose between him and Cruz (Anybody But Cruz). Though if Sanders is the candidate, I might just sit out the general.
Elizabeth Warren would have been great in Bern’s role. Plus she is a Democrat, which is a plus.
Warren knows exactly where the sore spots are of the 1% and how to articulate it
pandora: yes, there will be some waiting. that’s true no matter who wins. the wait with sanders will be shorter than with a republican, while hilllary doesn’t bring what we need on the economic front. i do wish i knew more about bernie’s foreign-policy ideas. i know more about hillary’s and i’m not crazy about them.
The one-trick is the most important trick: End economic inequality, restore fairness to the economy.
What Hillary Clinton suggests with her ‘progressive pragmatism’ is that such a goal is not attainable, therefore it is foolish to pursue it. Music to the ears of Goldman Sachs. Which is a disqualifier for me.
Oh, and in terms of vetting your candidate, maybe someone should have vetted those six-figure speeches that Hillary gave to her corporate overlords. Instead, we’ve got the Nixonian ‘I’ll release mine if you release yours’. Which is the kind of crap that’s bothered me about the Clintons since Bill was in the White House. You don’t think that drip-drip-drip will follow her throughout her campaign?
BTW, Bill is not the secret weapon he once was. His screed against Sanders supporters has a ‘get off my lawn’ quality to it. The rascally charm is absent.
You don’t think that drip-drip-drip will follow her throughout her campaign?”
I would LOVE for Republicans to start using Goldman Sachs as a poster child for everything that is wrong with politics and the economy. Maybe all that tea party populist rage could be focused in the right direction for once.
Why is it when I ask why I should support Bernie I get a list of everything awful about Hillary?
OK. Fine. Let’s go with Hillary is awful. Now what?
Well, I now know that incrementalism is okay. That surprised me. But I’m the one who’s always been okay with doing things in steps. Hello? ACA. I just thought, from previous threads, that this was a bad thing – that no one could get excited about this.
Hmmm… Drip, drip, drip. OK (I actually expected the problems you listed for Clinton). Now tell me, what are Bernie’s drip, drip, drips?
Here are a few issues I see:
1. One issue candidate.
That will only get you so far, and when I read comments on here about certain groups having to wait to have their concerns addressed because some people “get tired of hearing about it” it stops me cold.
2. Raising taxes
I’m just going to go with what most Americans (not all) feel about taxes and say this will be a problem. I’m fine with my taxes being raised for Bernie’s position, but I’ve accepted I’m not even close to the majority. (I know! I can’t believe it either!)
3. Socialist
Sure the times are a-changing, but have they changed enough? I don’t know, but I doubt it. I think this will be a liability, but I’ll not go as far as claim it’s a death knell. But I don’t really know.
4. Issues outside of income equality
I’ll just copy my previous thoughts here: I worry, despite his issues page, that he hasn’t had to defend or explain his positions in public on a variety of issues. I’m really uncomfortable with this. How does he handle these other issues. I don’t know.
5. Foreign Policy
His answers the other night were disturbing. I’m sure he knows he needs to fix this ASAP. How will he fix it? I don’t know. Hopefully he’ll do a FP speech.
Let’s just start with these 5 points and begin the vetting process. Now remember, I’ve said above that Hillary is awful – I don’t really agree with that, but we’ll start with that premise. OK? Sell me your candidate without mentioning Hillary Clinton and address my 5 points of concern. Thanks!
You fix the absence of foreign policy and national security chops by engaging in practice of the same. The question is will a world on fire wait for it and just what will he do to practice the art and science?
.
And no, the “The one-trick is (not) the most important trick:” There are multiple most important tricks and they won’t wait until economic equality is achieved (whatever his timeframe is for achieving it). The President juggles and puts out fires simultaneously with crafting foreign and domestic policy, creating humane solutions to illegal immigration and immigrants, shortlisting SC nominees, stroking Congress to find a tiny bit of common ground so that he/she can put flesh on the bones of those policies that they sold to the voters and world and then convince everybody that the final result was the intent all along.
The most important trick indeed! The entire job is most important period! If anyone is buying Sanders because of the single trick, they must live in a different world than I. I’d like to at least visit and see the wondrous edifice that everyone is worshiping.
Because he would dedicate his administration to eliminating the inequity that has led to the disparity between the 1% and everybody else. He would go after the banks and those who have benefited by, and who have participated in, the current rigging of the system. Yes, I believe that we have essentially become an oligarchy, and I believe that a sharp change in policy is needed to restore democracy to our democracy.
I might point out that a message of economic populism could well appeal to voters who are gravitating toward the Trumps and Cruzes of this cycle.
As to this: “I worry, despite his issues page, that he hasn’t had to defend or explain his positions in public on a variety of issues. I’m really uncomfortable with this”, that’s nothing that Hillary’s bud Deborah Wasserman Schultz can’t cure with a few more debates. Just one more process that has been rigged to an extent.
As to ‘addressing my 5 points of concern’, I don’t care to do that any more than to ask you to ‘address my (fill in the blank) points of concern’ about Hillary. That’s just gotcha stuff.
OK, Dave, I’ll bite. What the bleep would Hillary do to close the income gap? You simply can’t look at her and the Clintons and believe that they will change anything in a significant fashion. At least I can’t. They’re bought and paid for.
As to foreign policy, are you comfortable with Clinton’s hawkish views? I’m not. Yes, we need to hear more from Sanders. But appointing people to key posts that share his less hawkish views on foreign policy would, I think, help us stay away from too much muscular interventionism.
One more foreign policy point. Who on the R side is gonna school Bernie? Trump, Cruz, or Rubio? Bernie wins against any of them and their insane statements.
I think you belittle that “one issue” and people’e ability to see just how important it is, and how “economic justice” translates into other kinds of justice. Just because he doesn’t spell it out, doesn’t mean it isnt there. And again, you dont have to go all youtuby, but answers and positions on everything from marriage equality to sentencing reform are there. It also shows decades of consistency.
Perhaps that is a sign of the generational divide in his support. Younger people get our news and information differently. Thats my answer for 1 and 4.
2. it will be a tough sell, no doubt. but apparently, the people voting to have their taxes raised are most entitled and narcissistic generation ever… so it seems people can be convinced.
3. again… generation thing. Socialism is only a dirty word to the uninformed (possibly under educated?) Let’s call Bernie ahead of his time on this one. You will see more democratic socialist candidates for office, and it could start to be a problem for the Democrats who what to hold on to their big bank roots.
5. I got nothin. I can say i bet her has more experience when it comes to understanding foreign policy than Obama did…. manly because his career in congress is much longer. I think it was a poorly put together answer, and if he gets another shot, I hope for better. You can probably assume he wont be starting any wars.
Sorry for going all ‘in your face’. I’ve held my fire on the blog for some time on this.
As in the belittling tone of the we’re ‘committing political suicide’ by supporting Sanders stuff. Then watching the second abysmal campaign by the Inevitable One start to unravel. Just had to unleash some steam. Anger, actually.
You know, if Biden had run, he’d probably be coasting to victory right now…
Some of Hillary’s Bleeping Plans To Close The Income Gap
Raise the minimum wage
Fight wage theft
Encourage companies to share profits with employees via tax credits
Strengthen the ACA
Support unions and collective bargaining
Reform the tax code so that the wealthiest pay their fair share
Enacting the Buffett Rule
Expand early learning
Invest in students and teachers
Expand overtime
Eliminate the carried interest loophole
Reform capital gains taxes to encourage long term investing
Implement a new college compact to ensure students can attend community college for free
Expand AmeriCorps and build on the current Segal education award
Permanently extend the American Opportunity Tax Credit ensuring middle class families
You know, stuff that might actually be doable.
Nothing is doable with her name in the mix. She is a solid four years of nothing but confrontation and gridlock.
Let her flame out.
Let it go.
Sanders/Warren 2016.
Warren/TBD 2020.
You heard it here first.
Hillary Clinton has a problem. A lot of people don’t see her as authentic. They dont like her. That’s not a good thing when you’re running for office.
Nice cut ‘n paste, Dave. Would you like me to do the same for Sanders’ proposals?
The only way that anything on Hillary’s list is ‘doable’, barring a massive shift in Congress, is if/when she gives away even more stuff than Bill did to the corporations and all those NAFTA supporters. Which, not coincidentally, had an awful lot to do with how we all ended up in the 99%. No, I don’t trust either of them. If you’d like, I can pony up some stuff about the Clinton Foundation. Maybe you’ll come around as well.
Sure go ahead and paste the Sanders plan and let’s see how much is doable. If you don’t think Clinton’s is doable I can’t wait to see how you spin Sanders’ plan.
I don’t like Clinton and I don’t vote in the primary, but if I did I would vote my head not my heart because I don’t think we can afford the luxury of Sanders’ idealism or a GOP administration. If you think it’s safe bet then go ahead and roll the dice.
Coming late to this party, Pandora, but here’s two cents
1. One-issue candidate: remember “it’s the economy, stupid” for Bill Clinton in 1992, when he had absolutely no foreign policy chops and was running against a guy who had actually been a wartime president. My perception right now is that the only people really, really concerned about foreign policy in this election (as a statistical reality) are the people who want to build a wall and carpet-bomb mosques. Trump, Cruz, etc., already have them locked up; they go for neither Sanders nor Clinton.
2. Raising taxes. It killed Walter Mondale and it arguably helped cost G H W Bush a second term, but … this is a different time, and people are starting to talk seriously about how we are going to pay for things. The problem with raising taxes is that most politicians don’t sell the sizzle–we need ten cents more per gallon to fix the roads does not sizzle. We need higher taxes so that your children can go to college without you or them taking on six-figure debt does. And that Obamacare consultant was right way back when: most people can’t and don’t do the math.
3. Socialist? Hell, Trump just called Jeb a “pussy,” said he could shoot people if he wanted, and encouraged his supporters to beat up protesters. Plus, if it’s Trump, he’s a hell of a lot more socialist than most GOPers. Played correctly, I think Sanders could not convince Trump’s voters to go for him, but instead to just stay home, which is just as good. Besides, they will call Hillary a socialist, too.
4. Issues outside of income inequality. Fair point. But what Trump has tapped into is that the angry voters (who may actually vote this year) only needs 1 or 2 issues to motivate them, and if Sanders is the nominee against Trump, here’s the thing: he will get 10-15 million additional votes just from people voting to keep Trump out. And that alone is close to 30% of what he needs to win.
5. Foreign policy. Personally, I have not seen a candidate on either side who is not a disaster on foreign policy, Hillary included. She has the safety of a middle-of-the-road consensus bureaucrat leader who will continue (as Bernie will, and as even Trump or Cruz will) to allow the military-corporate complex to call the shots. At her best Hillary touches the “competent” line in foreign policy, but nobody running today can do inspiring.
I agree on your substantive points that Bernie hasn’t fleshed it out (although the thought of a man his age … never mind), but I just don’t think it matters as much this year. I think it is another “it’s the economy, stupid” year, and Bernie has better sound bites on that one issue than he does. Give him a running mate with even minimal foreign policy chops and all bets are off.
They actually agree on a lot.
It really is amazing that a post asking for reasons to support Bernie is extremely short of reasons. Whatever. Carry on.
Thanks, Steve. You even managed to write a comment without attacking anyone.
pandora: i like your hat. no snark. i just like it.
Bernie voted against the Iraq War, the Patriot Act and the bailouts.
Wants to break up big banks.
Wants to raise the min. wage to $15/hr.
He has thus far refuse SuperPAC money.
Wants to legalize marijuana.
Wants to put an end to the death penalty.
Supports medicare for all.
Supports tuition for all.
Bernie has been outspoken on all of these issues.
Do I need to point out where Hillary disagrees with Bernie on these issues?
The one thing that Bernie has over Hillary is authenticity. Hillary rarely seems sincere and is always late to the party. 3 days to issue a statement on Black Lives Matter? Somebody needs to up their talking points/focus group testing “tell me what to say” game.
I guess NH women found some reasons to support Sanders.
I like Bernie. I’ve been quite clear on that. I understand the reasons for voting for him.
As we were watching the results come in last night I said to my husband, “We have two great candidates.” He replied, “We might have two fatally flawed candidates.” Oh my. I asked him why he thought that. He replied, “I can see ways to easily take them both out.”
That was depressing. Hope he just had a bad day, because… sheesh, what a bummer.
Sad to say, I agree with him. I think that’s why I have and continue to hedge. There are downsides to both. What scares me the most is the ascent of Kasich. He has crossover appeal because people worry more about personality and positivity than policy. He’s a right wing conservative like the rest of them, but wraps it in optimism and practicality. Trump also could have cross over appeal, as much as I hate to say it. Taxing the rich, limiting free trade to save jobs, and good old fashioned xenophobia go a long way among many. And, if Bloomberg jumps in….I’d rather not think about it.
All the more reason that we unite behind whoever gets the nomination enthusiastically; however, it is also good that, at least for a while, both are seriously challenged by one another to work out the kinks.
Now I’m really depressed. Could this be the reason I can’t pick a candidate? I might need therapy.
If it’s any consolation, the Republican establishment is also depressed about their own candidates.
Slight correction: Either would be vulnerable to a good GOP candidate. As there are no good GOP candidates, either Democrat is less vulnerable than would normally be the case.
Hillary’s most substantial advantage is on foreign policy. That makes Bernie more vulnerable than she is should another terror attack take place before November. If you are worried about the GOP attack machine, it’s logical to choose Hillary.
I guess I’m not as worried about the smear machine as I used to be, because I think it’s losing some potency.
I don’t assume a rational electorate any more. Trump actually won votes. I also think Kasich is a decently strong candidate if he can pull ahead. We’ll see.
If Hillary hits Bernie on foreign policy, that will only remind voters of Hillary’s pro-intervention views. I’m not sure that’s a positive thing for Hillary. It will probably run up her numbers in the older demographic, but hurt her with the younger.
Take this for what it’s worth. (Hint: Nothing) I was just texting with my friend – K Street lawyer, life-long Republicans, mega-rich, lives in Vienna, VA and asked who they were supporting. I was expecting Kasich. Here’s what they said:
“Everyone we know wants to move to Canada if Trump is elected. Boy, there’s just no viable choice this election, other than Hillary. What a circus.”
Yeah, that surprised me. Like I said, this is interesting but doesn’t really prove anything.
Also in that category: Two close friends, one a stockbroker, the other a surgeon, both longtime GOP voters, tell me they are voting for Sanders. Just anecdotal, but these are the same things I heard from such people about Markell and Obama.
Enthusiasm is infectious. Caution, not so much.
Both are good stories – mainly because our Republican friends aren’t choosing a Republican. Then again, they are our friends!
Pandora – On your other question, Michelle Alexander, author of The New Jim Crow (and woman), explains…
http://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clinton-does-not-deserve-black-peoples-votes/
On the other hand, in conservative circles (where Trump has not been a darling yet, since he is not a social conservative), I’m starting to hear in the wake of Bernie’s showing in NH that they have to unite behind Trump sooner rather than later to keep the “socialists” out of the White House. So it works both ways–some people are starting to dump Cruz for Trump because electability (!?).
But I think you have not touched on Hillary’s greatest hurdle, and the one that Bernie is currently killing her on. She wears at the same time the mantle of “its her turn,” “inevitability,” and “she chokes in a tough fight.” Hillary’s campaign did as much in 2008 to defeat itself as it could have; not saying Obama did not run a brilliant campaign (he did), but it could have gone down to the convention closer than Reagan/Ford in 1976 if Hillary had been smarter.
Almost everybody is waiting for Hillary to start floundering. Bringing out Bill at a late date in NH was an important tactical error, because she brought him out and Bernie toasted her. If memory serves, she didn’t trot him out in 2008 until South Carolina. Until yesterday everybody was talking about how if Hillary closed below 10 points Bernie was done … and then he won by more than 20.
The other curious thing about this election so far is that while party outsiders are currently dominating, campaigning methodologies seem to have taken a giant step backward. I’m seeing nothing like the innovations in social media piloted by Obama in 2008, and certainly no “50-state strategy” by anybody (although Hillary could have that and I could have missed it).
Instead we are seeing a return to decades old rallies and staged events, which Trump has revolutionized. Calling Jeb a pussy or suggesting that protestors should be beaten has had a very intended consequence: these incidents have changed Trump’s rallies from political events into legit news events, and now challenged his supporters at each stop to participate in something that will get them and their candidate earned media.
(Of course this carries the problem of continuing to exceed expectations. By mid-March Trump will no longer be building a wall for immigration, he will have discovered that mine fields are cheaper. You heard it here first.)
Final note: if it is Trump v Sanders in the General, Trump won’t run against the programs Bernie is offering. He won’t scoff at free college tuition. He will simply promise that he, as a capitalist (ha!) and deal-maker he can get you these things better and cheaper: “Bernie the socialist can only get you free tuition through higher taxes; Trump the capitalist can give you free tuition and LOWER taxes at the same time!”
And they will believe him.
It’s probably worth note that Ta-Nehisi Coates today said he plans to vote for Sanders, in spite of the candidate’s position on reparations.
I’ll probably end up voting for Bernie. I still want him vetted.
@Dorian
I read that article a few days ago. It is thought-provoking and makes several good points. Bernie Sanders voted for the Clinton crime bill. Does that matter?
I could paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld’s quote about going into battle with the army one has, but I totally hate that guy. But we need to be mindful of which Democratic candidate has any chance of winning the greatest share of independent voters and able to motivate minority voters to show up on election day. And it sounds to me only Hillary is capable of delivering that. And what piece of Sanders’ agenda is she going to dismiss because she has friends and donors on Wall St?
The part where their power gets truncated, the system making them obscenely wealthy gets changed, and they get arrested for illegally ruining the lives of millions.
Pandora… It does matter. So let’s look at it in greater detail.
In speaking on the House floor ahead of the Crime Bill vote Mr Sanders said this (13 April 1994):
“Thank you. Mr. Chairman, let me begin with a profound remark: Two plus two equals four.
In other words, there is a logical and rational process called cause and effect. In terms of Newtonian physics, that means that every action causes an equal and opposite reaction. In other words, Mr. Speaker, there are reasons why things happen, as controversial as that statement may be.
A farmer neglects to tend and care for his fields—it is likely that the crop will fail.
A company neglects to invest in research and development—it is likely that the company will not be profitable.
In a similar way, Mr. Speaker, a society which neglects, which oppresses and which disdains a very significant part of its population—which leaves them hungry, impoverished, unemployed, uneducated, and utterly without hope, will, through cause and effect, create a population which is bitter, which is angry, which is violent, and a society which is crime-ridden. This is the case in America, and it is the case in countries throughout the world.
Mr. Speaker, how do we talk about the very serious crime problem in America without mentioning that we have the highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized world, by far, with 22 percent of our children in poverty and 5 million who are hungry today? Do the Members think maybe that might have some relationship to crime? How do we talk about crime when this Congress is prepared, this year, to spend 11 times more for the military than for education; when 21 percent of our kids drop out of high school; when a recent study told us that twice as many young workers now earn poverty wages as 10 years ago; when the gap between the rich and the poor is wider, and when the rate of poverty continues to grow? Do the members think that might have some relationship to crime?
Mr. Speaker, it is my firm belief that clearly, there are some people in our society who are horribly violent, who are deeply sick and sociopathic, and clearly these people must be put behind bars in order to protect society from them. But it is also my view that through the neglect of our Government and through a grossly irrational set of priorities, we are dooming tens of millions of young people to a future of bitterness, misery, hopelessness, drugs, crime, and violence. And Mr. Speaker, all the jails in the world, and we already imprison more people per capita than any other country, and all of the executions in the world, will not make that situation right. We can either educate or electrocute. We can create meaningful jobs, rebuilding our society, or we can build more jails. Mr. Speaker, let us create a society of hope and compassion, not one of hate and vengeance.”
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-1994-04-13/html/CREC-1994-04-13-pt1-PgH49.htm
Meanwhile, commenting on said Crime Bill, Mrs Clinton said…
“They are not just gangs of kids anymore. They are often the kinds of kids that are called ‘super-predators.’ No conscience, no empathy. We can talk about why they ended up that way, but first we have to bring them to heel.”
I suppose you see the difference here as starkly as I do.
This also indicates quite clearly that Sanders does compromise and can be pragmatic. But of course Mr Trump has everyone’s heads full of fear and pants full of shit to actually look at these details.
I see all of this. I am not anti-Sanders. I love his politics. I would just like him vetted. He hasn’t been, and that worries me. He voted for the crime bill. I get why he did it, but I worry about a John Kerry moment – this time, I was against it before I was for it.
I was watching Chris Hayes last night, and this segment probably speaks best for where I’m coming from. If you don’t want to sit through the entire segment go to approx. the 4 minute mark. BTW, I agree with every criticism leveled at Hillary in this segment called: What Should Hillary Clinton Do Now?
Her fumbling isn’t helping her – I can’t believe she didn’t learn from 2008, but her (or anyone!) not going after Sanders isn’t helping him. I’m fine with supporting Sanders, but I’m really concerned about what he’ll face in the general. (I’m concerned for her as well.) Now is the time to get any nonsense out of the way, and that just isn’t happening. I keep thinking… what if the Rev. Jeremiah Wright nonsense hadn’t come up until October 2008?
http://on.msnbc.com/1SJpO0N
I try to avoid cable news at all costs so if you’ll forgive me I’m skipping the MSNBC clip.
Question. You keep saying Sanders hasn’t been “vetted.” Vetted by whom? Every time I read that I just assume you mean don’t mean “vetted.” You mean that the shadowy hit machines haven’t pulled the Swift Boat routine and discovered that Sanders once wore a Che Guevara beret to an orgy in 1973.
Perhaps they haven’t, yet, but I fail to see how the fact that he hasn’t to date been viciously slandered should influence your support.
As far as actual vetting, everyone knows where he stands. There’s a very, very long public record. So let’s not pretend he’s some mystery man who just popped up on the scene like Obama when in fact he’s the opposite.
I miss those Che Guevara beret orgies
So we know how he’ll handle attacks coming his way?
That’s my point. I need to see him defend his positions and turn them into a win. He’s going to need to do that – so if he stumbles he has time to regroup and fix it. He’s going to have to convince people that raising taxes is a good plan (I agree that it is). He’s going to have to convince people that “socialist” isn’t a bad word. He’s going to have to convince people that free college for all and the expense that goes with it is worth it. I’m not saying he can’t do it. I think he can, but I have no idea how he would.
I hate that fear plays a big part in our elections, but it does. How do we put those fears to rest for those not already on board with Bernie’s agenda?
(And I would hope you would go to my link. I always go to yours because I think what you link to matters.)
BTW, I’m not really comfortable in the role of devil’s advocate, but somebody has to do it. 😉
The argument that we don’t know how a candidate will handle an undefined attack at an unknown moment in future seems pretty weak to me.
It seems to me that all the candidates are going to need to convince people of conclusions and positions that heretofore have been unconvincing. Mr Sanders is far from unique in this sense.
More generally it seems that some people are contorting themselves to argue that Sanders is a man of mystery with wild new ideas when this is not the case.
Democratic Socialism isn’t a new untested concept. We do it in the US to a great extent (Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, VA, public schools, Fire Departments, etc.) and it’s implemented in all industrialised countries to an even greater extent. This argument that it’s some strange, novel, untested and foreign concept is plainly not true.
OK, maybe it’s just me. If this doesn’t concern Bernie supporters then maybe I shouldn’t be concerned with upcoming attacks and how Bernie will handle them.
I can see major pitfalls for both candidates – and have said so. Both concern me, but I only ever see one side’s problems (which are very real) being pointed out. But maybe you guys are right. There aren’t really any pitfalls for Bernie that he can’t handle. (God, I really hope you guys are right about that.)
@pandora: Please keep in mind that your actual vote in this is meaningless. When I say I support Bernie, I don’t mean I’ll actually vote for him. I don’t bother with our presidential primary, which is thisclose to meaningless, and Delaware will go for the Dem in the general no matter what.
The Green Party will get my actual vote, which I treat as an opportunity to vote for a third party — any third party, but generally the Greens.
And yes, the Republicans will attack and oppose either one. That’s why I don’t base my vote on who will best counter GOP attacks. I remember John Kerry too well.
Perhaps I can be a little clearer. Sanders may indeed need to potentially deal with some unforeseen challenge or slander or smear campaign or hatchet-job. Nobody knows if it’ll come, what it’ll be if it does come, and how he’ll handle it. I certainly don’t.
This is true for all candidates. It has always been and will always be. How this is a fear for Sanders candidacy specifically, I haven’t the slightest idea. Seems like a strange boogey-man argument to me. I don’t scare easily and I am certainly not going to turn my back on my political views based on some shadowy undefined potential situation. It’s a very strange position, in my view.
I have said it is true for both candidates – both will be viciously attacked.
“Sanders may indeed need to potentially deal with some unforeseen challenge or slander or smear campaign or hatchet-job.”
There’s no may about it.
“We are ready for any unforeseen event that may or may not occur.”
― Dan Quayle
@DG: Most people feel that Clinton, having been attacked so often before, is better prepared to weather the storm.
There’s absolutely no reason to believe that that is true. Completely conjured up idea.
There’s plenty of reason to believe that is true. She’s survived every scurrilous bit of the VRWC crap thrown at her for 20+ years (including surviving charges of killing Vice Foster)and consistently ends up near the top of Most Admired polls.
I agree with Cassandra, but I don’t think that link demonstrates much beyond name recognition.
Since we don’t know (and can’t know) what the details of some future attack would be we have no idea how well it would be addressed.
How factual is it? How credible are the people making the attack – are they anonymous? Is it germane to politics and government or is it personal? How close to the election is it? Will the response be obviously focus group tested and lawyerly (in other words overly off-putting)? Will there be time to research different responses?
It humors me to read so much conjecture based on the assumption that the next unknown thing will be like the previous known thing. Very, very strange line of argument.
I could argue, for example, that since Sanders is generally seen as more sincere and less calculating, he’d be better equipped to handle an attack. Further that HRC is prone to overwrought, focus group tested arguments and hence seems more untrustworthy, unctuous and sneaky. I could make that argument and it’s just as valid as the argument that HRC is better battle-tested.
Bottom line is that this argument is very, very weak indeed and I certainly would be very uncomfortable making it, as I would hope all of you would be as well.
(I think using a “Most Admired” Gallup poll as an argument speaks for itself.)
Tell it to John Kerry.
Last time I checked John Kerry isn’t running for President. Again, very, very strange argument. Borderline embarrassing.
He ran for president once before, and was selected by mainstream Democrats over Howard Dean because those Democrats thought his military experience immunized him from the typical Democrats-are-weak nonsense. It turned out exactly the opposite way.
It’s a demonstration of how foolish it is to pick a candidate because his or her position cannot be attacked.
I don’t get your position. If you’re trying to claim we shouldn’t look at history, you’re probably on thin ice. Hillary has a track record on responding to fierce attacks; Bernie does not. Case closed.
And then there’s that… 🙂 As far as my argument, see above.
Once you start this bizarre arguments anyone can go anywhere with it, as Geez just did.
One could argue that in 2007 Obama had no experience on the national stage and no history dealing with the slander and attack. He was an unknown entity. Yet here we are after two terms of BHO.
It’s a very dumb argument. Sanders has been a politician on the national level for over 25 years. The entire discussion is extremely odd.
Obama didn’t have any experience on the national stage and no history (except in Chicago, which is its own ecology) of dealing with the VRWC machine. I remember quite vividly (and alot of worry happened right on this blog) about the crap being thrown at him — especially since the expectation was that he wouldn’t be subject to the same fire that Clinton would be. It isn’t hard in retrospect to see how *well* it was all handled (and he continues to handle)in spite of not having a long form birth certificate.
The thing about those VRWC attacks isn’t about taking anyone out as a first objective. It is about impeaching your credibility and authority with the folks who take their cue from the usual media bullshitters. The VRWC destruction pointed at Bill Clinton was exactly the reason why Toni Morrison pointed her infamous metaphor at Bill Clinton. And why no Democratic President can ever expect to be treated any differently.
Sanders may have been a politician at the edges of national consciousness for 25 years, but he has not had the full fire of the conservative wurlitzer pointed at him. He may or may not be able to survive it, but anyone who claims that this isn’t something to worry about isn’t paying attention.