As expected, Bernie Sanders is going to win in Washington and Alaska. We’ll have to wait a while for the results from Hawai’i. I expect him to win there, too.
Could be a nice Saturday sweep. It keeps him going, although it does little to change the race, which is already nearly put to bed.
Still, no one can argue that he isn’t putting up a strong challenge.
You know, Boo, you don’t have to say that the race is “already nearly put to bed” or some other such thing every time Sanders wins something. It’s not necessary and it suggests that either your readers don’t follow politics (kinda unlikely, don’t you think?) or you feel it’s your job is to discourage Sanders supporters.
Let us embrace the euphoria of the moment.
Well, it’s the job of HRC supporters always to throw wet blankets on every accomplishment and success Sanders has had. Otherwise, they’d have to recognize what a suck-ass candidate they’re supporting and the possibility that all her corporate money, lock on the DEM institutional/elites, control of the DEM debate schedule to deprive other candidates a fair shot, and yuuge MSM attention and free time wasn’t enough to make it their predicated romp for HRC.
again with the bullshit…
First Bob is euphoric that his preferred candidate won when it’s already too late.
Then you’re accusing me of being a HRC supporter when you know damn well that I’m telling who I think will win, not who I support.
The truth is, I don’t support either of them. I think they’re miserable choices.
But at least one of them aligns fairly closely with my politics and so can probably rely on my vote.
The other will be the nominee and probably the next president.
We seem to be having a bench issue. The collapse of state parties in the Obama years probably doesnt help but what kind of candidate either actual or in the abstract do you think would be better? Not snark or anything, honestly interested in your preferences.
Sherrod Brown
Deval Patrick
In the future:
Jeff Merkley
Martin Heinrich
Brown didn’t have the gumption to run. Quite possible that he would have garnered the same level of initial support that Sanders did. From what I’ve seen of Brown, he’s good on the stump, but not quite as good a speaker as Sanders and not so good in debates. So, he may not have done as well as Sanders has and now he’s got himself a nice comfy spot with the DEM PTB. Not exactly a profile in courage.
There’s a TV “debate” between Patrick and Kasich. Patrick was good, but Kasich was better. Since leaving office Patrick now works for Bain Capital — a real winner, huh? Plus there was no way that this country would elect back-to-back AA Presidents. Haven’t even elected a second non-Protestant 56 years after the election of the one and only.
Merkley is 59 years old. When is he supposed to make his move? 2016 would have been a good time. Oh, except for the problem that the party had already chosen the nominee.
Heinrich is worth watching as is Schatz.
Thanks for you assessment. I was not aware of all these facts, like Patrick’s connection to Bain Capital. Oh, my. This is the time for courage, vision, authenticity, and altruism. Senator Sanders has all four.
Yes, — but our host considers him a “miserable choice.”
I’ve long thought highly of Senator Sanders and viewed his entry in the race as welcome but doomed. How was a then 73 year old man with virtually no name recognition and no money going to have the stamina required to compete against the assembled HRC juggernaur? It was the 6/30/15 FEC filings that told me that he actually knew how to mount an insurgent campaign. He put together more of the pieces required and sooner than Obama had and did it without all the big money and big names that Obama had (an inconvenient fact those that praise Obama and dismiss Sanders white out). The hunger among voters that Sanders tapped into isn’t knew. It was there in ’08 and was what Obama had tapped into (and then squandered after being elected).
Had Sanders not been vigorous enough and not pressed his message forcefully, “they” wouldn’t have continued to come. It would have returned to a state of hibernation where it’s been since mid-2009.
I have appreciated Marie3’s thought provoking and informative posts for some time now. I see Marie3 as one of several intelligent and politically active posters on this blog. I do not see that Marie3 demands or expects agreement.
That goes for me too, for whatever that might be worth. I don’t think centerfield had to treat us to this meaningless dig, though I admit the clip made me laugh because both actors are appalling. Marie3’s comment is endlessly more cogent and informed than anything I’ve read by him. in fact, though his comment is very well organized and thoughtful I most often don’t understand where it leads to or even where it’s coming from. Maybe because I’m not so up on centrism in deed and thought.
Thanks for getting that both characters in the video are appalling. That was the point; I understand my role in this.
Anyone who thinks I’m a centrist doesn’t know me at all, and hasn’t respectfully read what I’ve written here. I’m a burning lefty, but I live in the reality-based community, so I know that either Democratic POTUS candidate is far superior to their Republican counterparts, and it’s in my, and I believe our, self-interest to bring a clearer-eyed view of the facts than is sometimes brought by marie3 and others who insist, and I mean this literally from their comments here, that there is nothing in Hillary’s record to recommend her. In that extreme and counterfactual position I see the seeds, however scant, of a possible demobilization of the base.
It’s the essence of BooMan’s earlier post, a post which was poorly engaged by many here. Some here want to posture rather than engage factually. I accept that there are bad parts of Clinton’s record and rhetoric, but some here provide no reciprocal acceptance of the good parts of her record, her ideology, or particularly her campaign, which is being thoroughly ignored by some.
Why would a Sanders supporter want to demobilize the base? If Clinton gets the nomination, what will you do when Senators Sanders and Warren campaign hard and effectively to see her elected? There are actual Clinton supporters here; do you see them attacking Bernie with such unbalanced viciousness?
Those who feel the need to foist their views upon this community should be willing to engage in debate about it. Instead, marie3 has unilaterally demanded of me that I refuse to engage or respond to her comments, enforcing the demand recently by demanding that I “fuck off!”. I’m trying to respect her preference, for the sake of our relationship and the community. It’s not just a disrespectful demand, though; it’s a demand that the most outrageous claims be allowed to stand without response from me. It has the potential to warp the comments thread, and it’s not what a community is about.
For example, now that Senator Brown has endorsed Clinton, he’s a fucking sellout, even though he’s aggressively out in front of the Congressional organizing against the TPP, among other issues. Another commenter might pause and consider why Brown has endorsed Clinton. Perhaps it reflects Sherrod’s respect for her work in the Senate and elsewhere, and an appreciation that Hillary is running on opposition to the TPP. But no, he’s on the wrong side now, so time to slap the devil’s horns on him.
The primary is burning hot, so I should be more forgiving that immoderate statements are being made here. God knows marie3 isn’t the only one. Where she does add an extra element of corrosion to her comments is her smug detailing of her decades of being right on all things while the Democratic Party and its voters have been wrong. Activists don’t build a movement by starting their persuasion pitch with, “When are you going to stop being wrong?”
Center, it was right on target. A perfect response. You only got down graded because they have the same opinions of people who don’t agree, so of course from their point of view the sanctimonious know it allism is warranted.
You were in no way personal (like for instance ‘stfu’ or ‘fuck off’) and did it with humor.
It was perfect. Which is why they don’t like it.
.
I gave this poster a “0” rating because I found it offensive. In fact, one could view it as sexist, but I’m not going there.
totally uncalled for, hence the rating.
it used to be the primary directive here at BT was don’t be a dick.
l guess you just can’t help yourself…or perhaps your hiatus wasn’t long enough?
or maybe this was nothing more than posturing on your part.
perhaps you might deign to honor us with an explanation of these seemingly paradoxical statements and your continued dickishness.
Read my comment above.
One would then hope you would then downgrade the rude insulting comments from the other side, when you see them.
But no.
.
You don’t have to downgrade any “rude and insulting comments” from the “other side” because I don’t read or respond to anything that center… person posts — even when it’s an unprovoked attack on me. Don’t know what that person’s agenda is; only that it’s dishonest and has often had the appearance of trolling me. All my requests to cut it out were a waste of time.
I’m only posting this comment here for anyone that may have been confused as to why I didn’t respond to the initial attack by this center.. person and to thank those that called it out for what it is.
Is it really a competition for who did it better between Obama and Bernie? People praise Obama because he had all of those advantages you mentioned and won. I suspect if Warren or Brown had run they would also have done about as well as Bernie, if not better.
How depressing that that can’t be dismissed as an invalid/inaccurate representation of the state to which things have devolved here.
If Warren had run, she would have stomped Hillary.
I hope that is obvious to anyone by now.
Before he ran for governor, Patrick was Executive Vice President and General Counsel of The Coca-Cola Company. He also worked as Vice President and General Counsel of Texaco, Inc. and served on the company’s Executive Council.
Kinda more centrist and pro corporate if you ask me.
I get where you’re coming from on this but do you really want to write off everyone that happens to be an executive in the corporate world? We can’t all be career government, teachers, union workers, or whatever else is acceptable employment on the left. Seth Moulton is a progressive with potential but I wonder if some would hold his military service against him.
I’ve got NO trouble with military members running for office, I commanded an Army EOD unit in combat.
My problem is somebody who goes from office to the Wall Street investment firm Mitt R-money started.
Texaco, Bain Capital, not the kind of circles someone working for the poor, fighting income equality, helping end climate change, ending specialn privildiges for the elite, would tend to work for.
TexaCo? Where all the black jellybeans just happen to stick to the bottom of the jar in 1996?
If I’m not mistaken, the only national political figure to endorse Sanders was Gibbard. I know that all the reps and senators and governors in Washington State endorsed Hillary.
This is the problem: While governors and representatives have the right to endorse whoever they please, when 75% of your constituents call bullshit on you it shows a disconnect between the Democratic Party and Democratic voters. Our governor in Oregon has endorsed Clinton and from what I see she’ll be losing this state by about the same margins as Washington.
Either they don’t understand the people they represent or they think that they are better, wiser than the people they represent. Neither scenario is good. Or, being part of the party process, they have to go along with Hillary because the Dem insiders demand their loyalty or else they’ll suffer the consequences. Which is even worse than the first two options. It means that the party itself is not representing who they’re supposed to represent.
At this stage in the primaries if 75% of the people voting say we don’t want the candidate you picked for us you shouldn’t expect people to fall in line. Or, rather, you shouldn’t expect everyone to fall in line. If Bernie did not win last night then the Democratic Party lost.
Can’t help wondering where that came from. Certainly can’t represent cumulative results to date.
Boo, why report on the election at all if it’s over and done? Why not spend your space on something else useful? Are you afraid that Sanders supporters might actually begin to believe in American democracy? Or, contrarily, are you afraid we will be so disappointed in Bernie losing that we’ll harm ourselves?
What if one of the two candidates has a stroke? What if Comey at the FBI does some political shenanigans for his buddy Ted Cruz?
What if Wallace hadn’t caught a bullet in ’72? What if Bobby hadn’t caught a bullet in ’68? Bobby would have been President if he’d lived. Nixon’s southern strategy in ’72 wouldn’t have been successful if he lost the south and had his total votes elsewhere shrunk by Wallace out-righting him.
By the way, Washington State actually votes Democratic, as opposed to Mississippi.
Bob, I am concerned that people who catch Bernie Fever at this late stage of the game are going to be unduly disappointed. This includes you.
My job, as I see it, is to tell you a reliable version of reality.
Here’s some reality from an unlikely source, the Washington Post:
That’s the real discussion going on while you are engaged in warrantless euphoria. I’ve got nothing against you, and I don’t want to see you disillusioned. You need to deal with the world as it exists.
To feel a small part of a communal sense of joy and euphoria in today’s political world is rare and real. A little bird told me, “it’s not over, ’til it’s over.”
“I am concerned that people who catch Bernie Fever at this late stage of the game are going to be unduly disappointed.”
It puzzles me why you think you should be concerned about that, or that you even could prevent people from being disappointed, or should even try. I guess the real problem is that you can’t encourage people who like Bernie, because you don’t actually like him. I mean yeah, you’re going to vote for him, but you don’t want to encourage anybody else, because they’ll only be disappointed.
The reason I think this is important is that the kind of people who read and comment here tend to see politics, particularly at the present time, as something long term, not just this campaign, as important as it is. Even if you can’t win, you could wind up heading a movement with some real clout, and change the balance of American politics. You might, for example, have the clout to keep a President Hillary from following her worst instincts. Therefore, if you like Bernie, it’s healthy to support him — irrespective of whether he really is going to win or not. Even the MSM and the establishment recognize that he is leading a movement with deep roots and wide appeal.
I don’t know whether you don’t believe that, or whether you do but are just put out that Bernie Sanders turned out to be the one leading it.
The point is, you find him a “miserable candidate.”
Do you find him a “miserable candidate” precisely because if he were really a good candidate he would be able to beat Clinton and the Clinton machine? Or is it
because he’s too much of an outsider to really have an influence on the party? Or is it because you decided from the beginning that he was a miserable candidate, and nothing that’s happened since has changed that view?
I would suggest that the Democratic Party, with the other “truly miserable candidate” exercising undue control over it, is a truly miserable party, and needs to change.
You admit Bernie’s doing a lot better than you expected. But because “he’s not going to win,” you don’t seem to see any significance in this. Circular reasoning? Many see his continually growing strength, especially with younger voters, as a very significant development in American politics. But as he travels the country campaigning, and as new people continue to “catch Bernie Fever”, your job is to tell them not to get their hopes up because you don’t want them to be disappointed.
Sounds kind of concern-trolly to me.
You’re catching on a good part of where my ambivalence is grounded.
You’re absolutely right that I don’t like to write about Bernie’s campaign.
And you’re right that one reason is that I don’t want to give people false hope. You know, I’ve said that people should work for him and support him if they want to, and that he shouldn’t drop out and should gather as many delegates as he can. And if you’re on board for that project, then that’s great. But that’s different than thinking you’re going to be part of a winning campaign, and it’s different than joining in the poisoning of the atmosphere and attitude toward the likely nominee.
Another reason that I don’t like to write about Bernie is because I like him a lot and I respect his supporters, and I don’t like insulting or criticizing him or them. I don’t see the need to explain why I personally don’t think he’d make a good president, especially because he isn’t going to be the nominee. So, I keep my mouth shut about the negative things I have to say him and his campaign. I do it out of respect.
What you see as concern trolling is really just discomfort with people who are not dealing in reality and are going to get their hopes crushed.
I don’t know how to say it any other way than the way I have.
Yes, go for delegates. Take it to the convention. Take the long view.
It’s the people who are taking the short view that worry me.
Thanks. I think I get what you’re saying.
What I’m saying, though, is that
(a) I think most Bernie supporters here are sophisticated enough to handle that, and
(b) More important, the concern about the short-termers actually undermines building the movement. The thing is to convert short-termers into long-termers, not to pour cold water on their hopes. Because their hopes are rooted in something absolutely real and extremely important.
(c) I am sure that is Bernie’s own attitude.
If you obsess on the negative, you’re going to get negative back. And you can see that.
Most people are not sophisticated.
Not in the way that you mean.
The knee-jerk responses liberals give to 90% of what they experience proves that they are no exceptions.
You want to know who in politics is most like me?
It’s Obama.
By instincts and temperament and outlook and goals, we are extremely close in our thinking. What I value about him is what I’m looking for in a leader and a thinker.
We don’t have candidates like that.
Well, I was referring to people who post here.
Sure, most people are not sophisticated.
I think I understand what you mean about Obama. One of the reasons I’m here is because of that. I understand his way of thinking. And an awful lot of people don’t.
I’m not exactly sure what his goals are, because he’s had to trim them so much. Under the circumstances he’s achieved a lot.
I think a lot of Democrats who don’t support Sanders see him as a Ralph Nader type, or some kind of a hippie. That is just wrong. Sanders is a very gifted politician and leader. He knows exactly what he’s doing.
Coming back to the subject of “short-termers”, Sanders is the one that really has to deal with them, and he is the only one that can. He has said repeatedly that if Hillary gets the nomination, he’ll support her. Many Sanders people have said just the opposite.
Sanders is going to have to convince them to vote for Hillary, and that’s not going to be easy. Maybe that’s what you’re really worried about?
for those that are not sophisticated, that is why you’re writing.
very well put
Thanks, Booman, for your analysis (including the Tippi reply, previously.)
Looking at what has happened so far, and at the contests coming up, here’s my unscientific view of what is going to happen over the next two months:
First, as of yesterday, Hillary needed about 700 more delegates, and Bernie needed about 1400.
Second, including today and up to the end of May, there are about 1100 pledged delegates to be allocated in 16 primaries and caucus.
Third, I think Bernie and Hillary will likely split many of these votes, but I believe Hillary is on track to achieve significant wins in the closed primaries in New York, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Kentucky while Bernie’s only large blowout will be today’s open caucus in Washington.
So over the next two months, Hillary will gain 600 to 700 delegates while Bernie will gain 400 to 500.
This means that at the end of May Hillary will be close to the goal of 2300 delegates, while Bernie will still be a thousand delegates behind. And there are only about 700 delegates remaining in all of the June primaries.
It’s not bullshit if many quite perceptive people here get the distinct impression that…overall, no matter what your protestations of innocence…about 95% of your posts on this Dem primary seem to be saying that HRC is the “inevitable” winner.
You can’t have your cake and eat it too, Booman.
Take a stand…win or lose.
Please.
AG
The glove is thrown down!
AG:
boo (just up-thread there!):
Something he’s stated numerous times previously.
Just what part of this distinction is beyond your capacity to grasp?
It’s like a segment of people would feel I was more honest and straight with my analysis if I just came out and said that I’m not trying to tell you what’s going to happen, I am trying to influence what is going to happen.
Because they can’t imagine it any other way.
I can understand a little bit, because eight years ago I was an advocate and a fighter for Obama.
I’m not fighting for anyone this time around.
Precisely.
The words “this time around” are the kicker here. You have “fought” for candidates in the past. In my opinion, you got screwed w/Obama. He didn’t do what he said…intimated, actually, because after all, he is a lawyer…he was going to do, on any number of levels. You don’t want to get screwed w/HRC and you don’t want to back Bernie Sanders because you think he cannot win the nomination; if he did you think he’d probably lose the election and if he won the election he’d be totally hamstrung by an overall hostile Congress. That about sums up your position, right?
So you’re essentially sitting this one out except as a prognosticator.
OK. Rename your site “A Prognosticative Blog” instead of “A Progressive Blog.” Truth in advertising, baby. Truth in advertising.
Here’s your mistake as I see it:
Bernie’s candidacy…win or lose…is going to change the Democratic Party. He is saying things…right out front, in public…that have needed saying since at least the Clinton I campaigns.No diddling around w/”politics,” he is saying that a socialist approach is what is needTed to save this country and he is further saying that being a cop for the NATO alliance is a large part of the reason that the U.S. occupies the overall position of weakness in which it finds itself today.
The very mention in public of these ideas by a Dem presidential candidate who is winning primaries is changing things. The old-line DNC types…a HRC right at the head of that line…are rapidly being considered by any number of heretofore sleeping Americans as soulless centrist hustlers, out to get over any which way they can. Not supporting a movement like Bernie’s…even if it not going to come to fruition immediately…is simply wrong, Booman. It is counterproductive for the future of the U.S.
If you have given up on “the future of the U.S.’…a perfectly understandable position given what has happening here for 15+ years…then just say so and be done with it. You understand the mechanics of politics very well. Pundit your ass off.
But don’t pose as a “progressive” while you do so.
It’s false advertising.
AG
I agree with you about a lot of what you’re saying about the positive effects of Bernie’s campaign, which is why I have encouraged him to keep going.
But that doesn’t extend to telling people that the nomination is still much of an open question. It’s a delegate fight and it’s a fight of outsiders against the establishment, and Bernie isn’t going to win that fight and he’s too old to give it another go in four years.
So, as long as people are clear on what they’re capable of achieving, I’m fine with it.
I’m not out there bashing BernieBros. You haven’t even heard me use that term one time until now.
As for your summation of my opinion, it’s fairly accurate but partial.
I’m actually quite concerned about the condition of the country, quite aside from the perennial concerns I have as a progressive. I don’t know what the hell would happen if we followed up on the Kenyan socialist with a guy like Sanders. I think Sanders has a very problematic style and personality for trying to govern this country.
To be clear, I’m ambivalent and undecided and concerned. I’m with Sanders on making a huge move to improve things for the middle class and working poor through things like free college tuition and a much higher minimum wage. But there are other things that just a bridge too far for a lot of the country to stomach without unrest. Some of it is policy, but it’s also just who Sanders is. His lack of religion is fine with me, but would not be fine with a lot of America. His failure to make friends on the Hill after 30 years is worrisome.
There’s just a lot of things, which combined make me feel that he’d be a very divisive and ineffective president. I have my list about Hillary, too, which is why I’m not supporting her.
Appointments.
baked in the cake at this point (at least absent a “wave” election of a magnitude nobody seems to be predicting at this point, i.e., one that would deprive GOPers of filibuster capability)?
What Dem wouldn’t, given the current Reality-Denying insanity of the GOP? Hillary? I see no basis to predict there’d be any significant difference in how either is treated by Congress, hence how “divisive and ineffective” either would be.
But that’s all a result of the current nature of the GOP, no? I mean, Bill Clinton already proved that, right? VRWC, etc.?
No, that much is clear. But if that’s really all there is to say about it, why don’t we all just pack up and go home? I mean, does that exhaust the topic of the Bernie Sanders phenomenon on the American scene? I don’t think so.
That isn’t all BooMan has to say about it.
He mentions upthread, and has mentioned over and over in previous posts and comments, that it is valuable for Bernie to hang in there, run strong campaigns all the way to the convention and pile up delegates so they can positively effect the Party. He’s largely with you here.
clear to AG, though (unless he consciously chose to ignore what’s clear and to write from that feigned ignorance).
I should probably add to my standard signature line (in fact, I think I might) “you’re entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.” Fits right in with the rest.
I think Booman made his position pretty clear. Bet on it.
Christ, I’ve been telling people for over two years that Hillary was the inevitable winner of this primary.
Didn’t I go through a public period of mourning over it starting in around 2014?
And then I got over it and told the rest of you what was going to happen.
You should have told Bernie. It would have saved him a lot of trouble.
Do you think he decided to run because he thought he could win?
No. I think he believes that if you’re on the right track and do the right thing, good things will happen. It’s exactly like a scientific experiment. If you’re right, you’re right. — so let’s see what happens.
And that’s really all you need. You get as far as you get. He’s already gotten way beyond where anybody thought he could get, and he’s not stopping. We are seeing experimental proof that he’s right. Where will this go? Join the effort and let’s see.
Not only he gets it. Millions and millions of people get it.
You hear a lot about bad karma. There’s also good karma.
well, that’s what he told voters, iirc, when he was deciding to run. I may be wrong, but that was part of his decision process
Did you watch his announcement press conference?
Yes.
And you watched it?
Yes I watched it live when it happened. I didn’t see anything wrong with it except that it had little fanfare, and the media treated it with contempt if they didn’t ignore it entirely.
why wouldn’t the media downplay it? He devoted all the planning and energy to it of a press conference to announce funding for a health clinic. Not even, actually.
I’m not sure what you’re getting at about watching it. I did not, my current work schedule – that’s why. anyway, we knew it was coming, it was being discussed in emails on dfa. I don’t think you have any concept of the degree to which HRC campaign is irrelevant to young ppl. all this discussion of falling in line when she’s the nominee – now is not the time for that discussion. but from what I see I expect low low voter turnout if/ when
You know, I have step kids who are 23 and 21. I can read exit polls that show 80% or more of young adults voting for Sanders. If I thought they’d easily make the transition to Clinton voters, I wouldn’t care as much about them being led on with false hopes. I mean, it’s a shitty thing to do to kids regardless, but…
I understand what you’re saying, but it isn’t false hopes. Bernie is verbalizing their issues, finally someone is; and he is honest, and expresses what they have a right to expect; they respond by working with each other, moving forward; if Bernie does not win the nomination – likely but not assured, imo – they’ll need somewhere to go next. but they are getting a start on the real issues, building community, getting organized. I say full steam ahead. right now I travel a lot around the country. what I see is the mood that Neildsmith expresses, a loss of expectation. and I’d say the blocking of Obama has played a big part, in dashing ppl’s hopes, though it’s been sold as Obama’s inadequacy (I don’t agree with that). the other part of my work I see young people exploited in fairly well paid jobs that sound good but are going nowhere; they work tremendous number of hours, can’t afford to get a place of their own, and in a couple years will probably be thrown away. everything we old hands discuss on this blog is of no relevance whatsoever. one of the things that bothers me the most in the Niko House video is the older generation’s betrayal of the younger.
they’ll need help with the transition whether he wins or loses; it must be along game, as you know
as I recall now he was sending emails testing the waters about thinking of running and i believe there was a conference call about it. iirc he said he’d only run if he thought he could win.
Well, I agree they’re both miserable choices (in almost every respect) compared to Obama, but who wouldn’t be? They’re both great compared to the other side’s choices, and really that’s all I need to know. I just hope the rest of the country concurs.
Actually I didn’t. Left that up to your interpretation. An if the shoe fits … comment.
If you’re really indifferent, simply report the facts:
As expected Sanders won the AK and WA caucuses. It remains to be seen what, if anything, these wins will do for his candidacy.
Or if you wanted to be really generous to Sanders and his supporters and respectful of how much effort they have put into the campaign, you could have added:
Sanders wins seem stronger than expected and exceeded the strength of Obama’s ’08 wins in AK and WA.
Trump or Cruz are miserable choices (and none of the other GOP dropouts were less miserable.
you didn’t?
What was this? “…it’s the job of HRC supporters always to throw wet blankets…”
Are the words “HRC” and “supporter” now open to interpretation?
“The truth is, I don’t support either of them. I think they’re miserable choices. “
That explains a lot, actually.
Is that really a newsflash to anyone?
No. It’s just surprising to me that that’s all you can say after the way the campaign’s gone thus far. Even if you’re sure he can’t win.
I mean, you don’t like Sanders, but you say his positions are much closer to your own. Yet you don’t even talk about those issues or how they’re reflected in the campaign and the way people respond to it around the country. It doesn’t make sense to me.
I do like Sanders. I like him a lot. I just don’t think he should be president. It’s not like I think Hillary should be either. That’s why I don’t support either of them.
Why don’t you think he should be president?
I’m not getting into that.
both inadequate – is Hillary preferable? hippocratic oath, first do no harm
I don’t know.
That is kinda where I am–no more harm or we won’t have any chance of stopping the financialization of our economy. Not to mention the environment. Handing carbon trading to Wall Street would be criminal.
Er, don’t know how this posted here. Please ignore.
I’ve been convinced since you got the promotion at WaMo last year that you decided to change your MO here as well; to go along to get along with the DLC / centrist line strictly enforced by WaMo. Understandable, but your writing suffers as a result. Even those that were not familiar with boomantribune.com many years ago must read your posts now and come away confused about what your point is. Your posts are more schematic, less soulful.
I challenged you directly once on this and you were, proactively, dismissive of my comment. It was…revealing. This post isn’t out of concern for you or your career. It’s a little bit out of concern for the blog, since yours is one of the only ones of its kind left that I can tell. (Yours seems sort of old-style by now I guess, with threads, and less of the mind-control tactics other blogs have adopted ostensibly to prevent hijacking but that appear more to marginalize certain types so that mainstream members aren’t made to feel uncomfortable). But not so much concern for the blog either since it’ll run as long as you choose to run it and then it won’t anymore and the beat will go on.
But it sounds like a lie when you insist you’re not a Hillary supporter, just a prognosticator. Sure you’re not bragging when you remind that you predicted Clinton would win the nomination in 2014; we all did that–she was the only game in the running then. But you’ve been fully on board the mainstream media’s push in favor of HRC’s inevitability, defacto, since you started to write more often about the campaign last (when?) November, December…. And it just sounds like an equivocation now to say that you find both candidates miserable, defensively.
You were one of the best and brightest lefty bloggers. FWIW I assumed you were black for most of the past eight or nine years I’ve been reading here; so like all writers, a lot is left to the imagination of the reader. You had conviction, not just in favor of the Democratic Party, but in the candidates you enthusiastically endorsed and delineated for the rest of us.
So, saying, as you have just recently that you support neither candidate, when almost every post you’ve put up on the topic of the Dem nomination contest this season has persisted the HRC inevitability theme, sounds like a lie. Like you don’t know your own mind any more.
No question you’re a different person than the exciting author you used to be; everything changes. The rent must be paid, children fed, careers built, future looked out for. Or, I don’t know. Maybe you’re a trust fund babe and financial security has nothing to do with it; you just want to get a gig like Taibbi’s got at Rolling Stone. So, yes, kind of a news flash. All changes call for compromise along the way. But, in my humble opinion, the change is a loss, and the original BooMan is missed.
Good Lord, this is disrespectful. You have every right to be disrespectful; just want to make sure you’re aware how disrespectful this comment is.
Engaging the extended arguments and statements of a person, and publicly calling that person a liar or deluded because you deign to know their motivations even if they cannot or will not admit them: these are two different things.
C’mon, you knew it was going here.
If you’re not on board, fully and completely, you a sell out, traitor, or just plain stupid.
It is the exact mirror image of conservative thought.
.
.
And after you fuck off, please tell me what the hell you’re trying to say. I called someone a liar. So what? Tell me what’s not true about it, not how offensive you find it that I called him a liar. You don’t like my diagnosis, offer your own. (Look up the definition of hypocrite while you’re at it.)
The posts that appear at the top of this blog severak times a day aren’t generated by a program. They’re written by a person. A person that appears still to respond when addressed or written about. Maybe it’s not a person, just a robot of some sort. Then I’m the idiot for thinking it’s not, and that there remains a personal element.
What I wrote above is the height of respect. I gave it a fair amount of consideration over a period of time and said what I wanted to say. I said my piece honestly. People lie. Sometimes on purpose, sometimes awares, other times not. They lie all the same. Sometimes they forget the truth, sometimes they’re forced not to remember. Absent jumping to where we question the truth of any story, BooMan represents himself as a writer that tells the truth. He implies it’s his chief concern.
So when he says he has not been an HRC supporter and I say he has been, defacto, and call him a liar for his lack of self-insight, I’m doing him a favor. You don’t agree with the diagnosis, but you sit on his shoulder here like a good fairy and whisper sweet nothings into all of our ears (repeatedly), so what’s your game, and who are you trying to fool? (If you’re just an average idiot with robotic tendencies then…fuck off.)
If it’s not personal you’re not reading this right now.
you know how to sell out and get ahead in the liberal writing world?
Say you think both candidates are miserable choices.
That’s the key.
That’s the way you get the maximum people to want to throw money at you.
Also, you’re aware that the people we have blogging at WaMo includes David Atkins who is a very strong Sanders partisan, Nancy who seems to be supporting Clinton openly, and me who is noncommittal.
Obviously, there is no party line.
What there is, though, is a policy that none of us can endorse in our writing there.
As a result, I wouldn’t endorse here either even if I had a strong preference. That’s a change from the past when I felt no compunction about siding with Obama.
So, yes, I’m officially out of the advocacy game for the moment.
You can try to read the tea leaves but they aren’t that hard to read. I’ve said that I’m undecided but Sanders will probably get my vote even though I’m not sure he’s the better choice.
More importantly, I told who would win and why, starting two years ago and continuing on into the actual math involved as the primaries got under way. If the numbers had told me that Clinton would lose or might lose, I would have told you that instead.
WaMo is not a DLC / centrist rag?
“What I wrote above is the height of respect.”
Let’s see:
An article defending the best single-payer health care system in the country.
An article defending regulations.
An article bashing monopolies.
It’s true that WaMo used to be in tune with the DLC under previous management.
About the most you can say today is that my boss used to be a speechwriter in the Clinton administration and he’s pretty loyal to the family. That doesn’t keep him from having David Atkins writing on the front-page this weekend.
Things are more complicated and interesting that you’d like them to be.
As already quoted upthread in reply to AG; booman:
For cfdj to characterize as merely “disrespectful” this refusal to accept booman’s own statement of his own position at face value seems generous to a fault to me. I think it’s downright rude (and even that may be generous to a fault), as it amounts to, for all practical purposes, calling booman a liar.
I hate when anyone presumes to know better than I do what I think/believe (and have clearly stated) better than I do. Don’t you? Doesn’t everyone? Absent clear evidence to the contrary, the hubristic obnoxiousness of doing so would be hard to overstate.
I think you’re correct. Mine could be interpreted as an expression of disrespect, but qualified by praising earlier work (so there’s that). But, likewise, I’m arguing with much more that the statement you quote, as I explained.
When you say I was rude, that’s the disrespectful thing, no? You assume a lot to call my comment rude. It’s not rude to call another person a liar, either way, is it? Raising question’s okay with you, isn’t it? Or is BooMan’s word sacred to you somehow, oaguabonita?
And no one I suppose likes it when another presumes to know them better than they know themselves. Some things go without saying.
For all I know, Glastris and Martin’s older brother at WaMo have a gun to his head in re Hillary. Maybe he’s always been a mole for the agitprop forces of the right wing. Maybe he’s just a slightly above average sibling of an editor that needed a job and writes bullshit very well five times a day. Whatever the case, his lines about the Sanders / Clinton race ring false for me in general, and ring specifically false (giving him the respect for intelligence that I think he deserved) when he says he doesn’t endorse HRC for the Democratic nomination this year. He has to do all of this now or his full-throated support for her after the convention will sound even more dishonest.
someone a liar without documenting the lie (including that it is a lie).
Just as it’s rude (to put it mildly!) to refuse to take at face value someone’s own statements about his/her own positions/beliefs in the absence of compelling evidence that indicates convincingly that she/he is in fact misrepresenting his/her actual positions/beliefs.
Pretending the ability to read what’s in another’s heart/mind — especially when your read contradicts what that person has actually, clearly said is there, and without any compelling evidence that refutes that — is just offensive.
Doesn’t matter whether the person you’re being thus rude to is me, you, booman or anyone else. (Though it may arguably make it a bit more offensive when that “liar” insult is directed against your host here. Somehow I doubt you’d say [or imply] someone whose dinner guest you were was a liar, absent solid evidence of that. Or would you?)
RE: “For all I know . . . Maybe . . . Maybe . . . “.
Right. And for all you know, I’m Brad Pitt. Or “maybe” Angelina Jolie. Or “maybe” George Clooney.
Meh.
I appreciate your efforts, but you don’t have to defend my honor.
I think it’s natural for people to be suspicious when someone refuses to take a side. I think it’s understandable to wonder why I would go from hotly battling the Clintons eight years ago to taking a very soft glove approach to them now.
It’s okay to ask the questions, even in a skeptical and mildly hostile manner.
I do hope he accepts my answers, but I can’t control that.
defending your honor.
More about defending basic decency. Maybe also about trying to keep this community, whose general civility stands out (or used to) relative to the cesspits that are most comment sections from going (or going further) in their direction.
As I said:
Would it have killed you to note:
AK — ’08
Obama: 75%
HRC: 25%
IOW — AK DEMs weren’t going for HRC’s ’08 pitch that a black man was unelectable. Maybe the voted for Obama on the content of his character in comparison of HRC.
AK — ’16
Sanders: 81.6%
HRC: 18.4%
Maybe AK DEM voters chose Sanders for the same reason.
What’s required to change the race? 85% instead of 75?
A 105%. Of 2016 voters b/c 105% of what Obama received in ’08 was shattered in MA.
5 of what will be the last 6 caucus/primaries is not enough.
At my caucus, Bernie got 6 of 7 delegates. It was hard to spot a Hillary supporter while the Bernie folks wore their stickers and buttons proudly. Seems Bernie is “in” as a fashion statement.
Sahil Kapur tweet:
HRC had that same level of DEM institutional support in NH. Looks as if that played better in NH where she only lost by 23 points. Or residents of WA had more time to figure out who the candidates are and what they stand for.
Same in MN except for Ellison and he won by 22 points. Strib asked if this huge disconnect between electeds and party faithful is an issue for the DFL going forward and the response was probably not this year. I mean obviously theyre talking about trump, but it is a big gulf in someplaces and that seems lotentially very dysfunctional.
Exactly.
Indubitably.
Did Kshama Sawant endorse Bernie? lol
ABC News or Booman Tribune? You decide:
“Sanders Wins 2 States; Clinton Retains Big Delegate Lead”
I don’t know why they even bothered with what was before the semi-colon.
It will take a generation to ‘socialise’ socialism but nice to see we’ve already started. Props to Bernie.
This country, as well as the world and the environment, can’t wait a generation for real change.
Ya know, here’s an in the moment comment. Today I caucused here in WA state. Our turnout was the highest in the County and we also had the highest rate of Bernie votes yet counted in the State.
But the thing that was great was that the room where all 400 of us (in a community of 3,000) met was filled with smiling, happy, informed people who were energized to get the job done. Favorite moment was when a very elderly woman was carried in, as she raised her fist and yelled, ‘I feel the bern’. 2nd favorite was seeing all the babies and little kids with Bernie tshirts on.
There was no noticeable nastiness between Clinton and Sanders’ supporters; only good back and forth discussions. It was a good day for Dems in WA.
Operative words here are “it does little to change the race”.
If Sander’s momentum continues and he can really challenge in Calif, you will see all the Hillary support in super delegates soften. They are not bound by the results in their districts. They can certainly change their minds at the convention. Will they? Who knows but their votes are not cast in stone.
R
Here’s a tip.
The superdelegates are not going anywhere. They consider it their job to decide a close election in favor of the candidate who they feel is the best choice. They are almost all elected officials, i.e., people who have been wildly successful with current system and the current values of the party.
There are a small handful who might be convinced to vote for the candidate that won their state or district, especially if was overwhelming like in some of the caucus states.
And there are a handful who only supported Clinton because they saw which way the wind was blowing, and if the wind blows the other way they might switch. But most of these would only move if Sanders wins the most pledged delegates, which he cannot do.
White progressivism is barely tolerated in Washington DC as something respectable. I am a very pragmatic progressive and a fairly moderate one, and I feel like I’m Che Guevara whenever I’m in DC for more than four hours. I’m treated that way, anyway.
That’s not a good thing, and a decent argument in favor of revolution, but it’s also the plain unvarnished truth about where we stand in the greater scheme of things.
Putting your hope in a superdelegate defection is not wise.
Is Tulsi Gabbard crazy, then? Or is she just Hawaiian?
It’s been said many times, but I’ll say it again. There’s Inside the Beltway and then there’s America. Especially now.
Again:
That’s the way to do it.
Thanks.
We’ll soon hear from Hawaii.
Hillary got routed in Hawaii. With 88% reporting: Sanders–70.6% Clinton–29.2%.
Guess Hawaii DEMs aren’t as protective of Obama’s legacy as DEMs in other states.
To make the MSM/DC narrative work, they declared:
(MSNBC and WaPo repeated the “Bernie only wins in white states” mantra.)
Why don’t they just say that Hawaii doesn’t count because it hasn’t been a state since 2008.
For the record, I don’t see Hillary as continuing the Obama legacy any more than I see Bernie as going against it.
That is actually a Hillary meme.
From my POV, Bernie is building on and expanding the Obama legacy, and I would bet that this is how most of the Hawaii voters see it too. It just doesn’t make sense to interpret the vote for Sanders as a repudiation of their favorite son.
Understand that it’s a meme, but it’s been one that has been pushed hard by the Clinton campaign and her surrogates to mask her insider game. And it has worked extremely well.
Right, well, we don’t have to help spread it.
à propos —
http://www.rimaregas.com/2016/02/msm-painting-hillaryclinton-as-heir-to-barack-obama-a-snow-job-medi
a-ethics-on-blog42/
I completely agree
Yes, and a lot of these Inside the Beltway people just talk to each other. Sure they poll issues, etc., but it’s not the same as “going door to door and talking to people.” I casually interview people-friends, neighbors, and strangers. I also listen when I’m in restaurants or gatherings. At the Lenten fish fry last week several couples were discussing Obamacare and it was not a nice conversation. I didn’t even know these people. Beltway people have no idea what is going on in America. It is not Happy Land.
I understand Pragmatic progressivism, but the super delegates are pragmatic politicians, and those outside the beltway know that HRC is not that popular and could lose to Trump.
I had a revealing conversation with a very strong Hillary supporter the other day. College educated professional. She was quizzing me about if Sanders came out in support of HRC, would I voter for her? I hemmed and hawed… and said Hillary is a weak candidate, especially if Trump is shoved aside at the convention for someone like Ryan. then she hit me with this- “Ryan would not be bad as President”.
I think Hillary’s support, both in the country and the super delegates, is a mile wide and an inch deep. Many have given up that she is the best we can do now. Well, we won’t know unless we try. If she can’t win the primaries in the Upper mid West and the NW; when her most dedicated followers would be out. And she certainly can’t win the General in the South… that just leaves Calif. as the basis of her “electability”. If Sanders strongly challenges in Calif; then the nomination is up for grabs.
R
“Ryan would not be bad as President”. Neolibs LOVE austerians. But a dumb one?
Wow,
just wow.
.
Anybody wanting to follow up on Steven D’s recent post “Bernie MI Dir. Allegedly paid by Hillary PAC”, about alleged sabotaging of the Sanders campaign, I found an interesting site where the comments are pretty knowledgeable, as a lot of them are by people working in the Sanders campaign in the Carolinas.
And that is here:
http://caucus99percent.com/content/wall-st-hill-dot-com
Oh, and this too. This is the one about MI.
http://caucus99percent.com/content/ryan-hughes-mi-and-pa-bernie-state-director-accused-accepting-hil
lary-super-pac-money#sthash.rCnMVXjd.dpuf
Bet wrap-up I’ve come across yet, with links.
http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2016/03/sabotage-in-north-carolina-democratic.html
Is anybody at all surprised? The Clintons will do absolutely anything to get back in the White House. Their groupies will do whatever they have to to get them there.It’s who they are.
A questions: has Hillary Clinton every said she would support Bernie Sanders if he won the nomination? Maybe she did and I missed it. By the time we reach the convention he is going to find it very difficult to support her convincingly if he loses. And it will be even more difficult for her to accept it with a honesty and appreciation: it’s just not her way.
‘The Education of Hillary Clinton’
His interview on Young Turks shows he’s changed his mind on this, unsurprisingly when you see how well he’s been treated by the DNC.
Doing some back of envelope calculations:
Assuming that delegates are awarded in proportion to reported votes (because I have not found the actual numbers) yesterday ended with Sanders picking up 73% of the days delegates to Clintons 27%. Before yesterday Sanders needed 58% of the remaining pledged delegates to close the gap until the convention. 73% is obviously more then 58% and brings the percentage of needed remaining pledged delegates for Sanders down to 57%.
That is tough but not impossible. Looking at for example 538’s model so far, they have underestimated both candidates strenght where they are strong. It would be interesting to see a revised model using the lessons learned so far. Alas, support changes over time (that being the purpose of campaigning) and the future is unknown, so certainty is hard to find.
This is all assuming that the target is a majority of pledged delegates. If I understand this thread right however, the Superdelegates might tip the election to Clinton even if Sanders gets the majority of pledged delegates. But would that not risk severly depressing the vote in general election?
I found somebody who had actual numbers on the delegates:
Aloha! Delegate deficit drops by 68 to 226. Bernie wins by 47% in WA, 41% in HI, and 63% in AK.
It is also interesting that Sanders is by 538’s model sligthly stronger then Clinton in the upcoming states, given that the strenghts seems to have been understaed in it.
However, this does not change my conclusion, and more importantly my questions at the end.
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/D-Del.phtml has the details.
Bernie brought up some important issues, but he can’t win at this point. I hope his campaign begins to tone down the rhetoric and lays the foundation for his endorsement of her when the time comes. The Anyone But Clinton crowd on our side has been very vocal and they need to be marginalized when that eventuality is here.
Too many Bernie people (elsewhere, especially) are treating this primary fight as a fight for the future of mankind. It’s not. It’s one part of the process of moving our politics forward. Hillary would do much better at moving Bernie’s agenda forward than any Teabagger. We need to keep our eye on the prize.
I donated to Bernie’s and MOM’s campaign just after they announced, but HRC had my vote in the VA primary. Bernie and his campaign people turned me off with their incessant “millionaire and billionaires™ and our corrupt campaign finance system” screeching. The implication being that if you didn’t agree that that was the overarching issue with politics, and give them money every time they asked, then you were corrupt or an idiot enabler. I don’t think that’s the biggest problem – millionaires and billionaires™ don’t care about gutting the ACA, or destroying legal gay marriage, or gutting contraception and abortion rights. The problem is that there are too many insane Teabaggers in office. The fight is with the GOP – not with Hillary.
I agree with Boo that Bernie had a good message in some respects, but he’s a terribly flawed messenger. The voters recognized that, and that’s why he won’t win the nomination.
My $0.02.
Cheers,
Scott.
But Hillary can lose. It’s not a threat. It’s stating a fact. She has the second-worst likeability ratings. I can see her getting crushed in the general.
She’s so horribly unlikable yet has more votes than any other candidate. It’s weird, huh?
Polls aren’t votes. Votes are votes, and votes are what are need to win the nomination and the general election.
HTH.
Cheers,
Scott.
I think we all agree that defeating the Republicans is the most important thing.
For the rest of it, I think your grasp of what both Hillary and Bernie respectively represent, is superficial. I am sure a lot of people see it the way you do, however.
Even if he’s not winning, even Booman admits that Sanders is giving Hillary a pretty good run for her money. That’s why I can’t help wondering what are those “terrible flaws” you speak of?
Flaws? You want to know what I’ve picked up in conversations? Try this:
“Sanders? That Johnnie One-Note? Poke poke poke with the finger all the time! He’s like your cranky old uncle at the holiday table who won’t shut up about his Grand Theory of Everything Wrong With The World.”
Yes, of course it’s a simplistic caricature. But the right-wing noise machine will I’m sure run with that, when they’re not Wurlitzerizing the socialist bogeyman, calling him a pie-in-the-sky nutcase, etc. etc. et bloody cetera. So far they’ve left him alone while focusing all the energy they have left over from savaging each other on Clinton.
Look, I like a lot of the man’s message, but as a rank amateur at the craft I can write a script for an attack ad without breaking a sweat:
Sad music
Ordinary American: What can we do about this terrible economy?
Circus music
Brief contextless clip of Bernie ranting about Wall Street, or just poking his finger and shouting “Wall Street!”
Ominous music
OA: What can we do about the terrible crime in our neighborhoods?
Same music
Same clip
Deeply ominous music
OA: Those terrorists threaten our way of life! Who will protect us?
Speeded-up circus music
Same clip, speeded up
Fade to swelling heroic music as the GOP candidate strikes a manful pose against purple mountains’ majesty….
I get it, some people don’t dig him, they pick up on certain traits and caricature them.
There isn’t a candidate in the world you couldn’t do that with.
So yeah, for these people, they are glaring flaws. But that doesn’t mean they really are, or that most people see him that way. Look at yesterday’s primary results.
To those inclined to like him, no, they’re not glaring flaws, of course not. To the wide swaths of people who don’t know bupkis yet about him, though? How will such attacks play out with them? Given how thoroughly despised and mistrusted atheists are in this country, how vulnerable is he on that front? I say that as an atheist, by the way.
And the primary results come from people already predisposed to like Sanders, so using that to claim that “most people like him” seems like a slender reed to rely on.
This, too: I live in Massachusetts. The reactions to him I’ve cited here aren’t coming from some red state hellhole.
Look, I’m with Booman in seeing pluses and minuses in both Democratic choices, and not being thrilled with either, but committed to working hard for either one in the general election. I think it’s vital to recognize unpleasant facts about what that’s going to be like, no matter who our candidate is. Blithely presuming that Bernie’s righteousness will ward off all attacks, no matter how they’re framed, is foolish.
All I’m really saying, Janicket, is that an awful lot of people around the country respond very positively to Sanders. And that’s just a fact — in the context of current “politics as usual,” a surprising fact. So when you say “those inclined to like him”, I don’t think that Oklahoma Democrats (and many other states) were expected to fall into that category.
That many others are responding negatively to him is no surprise. That’s what usually happens in elections, isn’t it? And weren’t we constantly told, “How can a 74-year old Jewish socialist from Vermont who talks with a Brooklyn accent … ? etc.
A lot of people (including and perhaps especially some blacks) saw Obama as a flawed candidate — because he was black. Guess what? Some people wouldn’t vote for him for that very reason.
As you imply, Massachusetts is not usually classed as a “red state hellhole”, and yet I just read this in the Times this morning:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/27/upshot/trumps-secret-weapon-blue-state-voters.html
Incidentally, Sanders is not an atheist. It’s a great meme, though.
http://www.religionnews.com/2016/02/04/bernie-sanders-disappoints-atheists-strong-religious-feelings
/
Lots of people are responding favorably to Trump, too.
Anyone who thinks Massachusetts is a shining beacon of true-blue liberalism doesn’t know much about the state. The politics are way more complicated than that.
What I’m saying is, there’s an air among some (not all by any means) Sanders supporters of belief that his sterling character and stirring vision will somehow insulate him from the corrosive effect of the right wing propaganda machine. I don’t think for a moment that you fall into that category; I do think the more naive of his adherents are in for an unpleasant shock when the attack dogs turn their attention from Clinton to him. Enthusiasm is fine and helpful; irrational exuberance, not so much.
And yes, I do think his favorability ratings will drop once he comes under enemy fire.
Why, yes. Yes, I am a cynic.
I’m not sure what you mean by “insulate him from attacks.”
The attacks would certainly happen, but I think they would backfire. That is, the people who already support Trump and Cruz would eat it up, but it wouldn’t go much beyond that.
I base this on one simple fact. Trump and Cruz are despised by a significant majority of Americans. He is respected even by a large percentage of people that are not planning to vote for him. The polls have consistently shown this.
The spectacle of Trump and Cruz trying to trash Sanders would only make them that much more despicable to most voters. Again, polls have consistently shown Sanders to be the candidate with the highest approval by far, and the only one with negative disapproval.
Polls have also consistently shown him to beat Trump or Cruz by wider margins than Hillary would; although in fairness to her, as of now she too would beat either of them handily.
It’s not an aura of purity, it’s toughness and smarts. I think Bernie can very well take care of himself. He would pulverize them.
I just found one piece of evidence that might appear to corroborate your view. It’s a very recent poll by CNN, indicating that Sanders’s favorabilities, while still the highest overall of any candidate, have gone down significantly over the past few weeks.
March 25, CNN national
“Sanders notches the highest overall favorability among registered voters, with 48% viewing him positively vs. 45% unfavorably. That’s a steep drop since last month, when 60% of registered voters overall had a positive take on the Vermont senator. Sanders has seen his ratings slip among registered Democrats and Republicans during that time, and independents’ impressions of him are now evenly divided.”
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/24/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-cnn-poll-2016-election/
The things is, that is such a huge drop, I wonder if the poll is accurate. It’s just one poll.
If accurate, I wonder if the drop hasn’t been mostly among independents.
Not sure what to make of it, but it’s something to watch.
Yes, I saw that story also, in fact I posted about it four days ago:
http://www.boomantribune.com/comments/2016/3/23/113712/199/110#110
A post which appears to have been completely ignored.
I too would be cautious about putting too much weight on one poll, but the fact that the slip is across all segments I think indicates there could be something going on, perhaps a number of influences. For example, the identification of some protesters involved in violence at Trump rallies as Sanders supporters; the greater media coverage as the campaign has continued, making more about him known to a larger swath of the public — both favorable and unfavorable aspects depending on the recipient’s beliefs and circumstances; even personal and/or online interactions with the more, shall we say, ferociously self-righteous of Bernie’s partisans.
Time will of course tell, but if the drop is mostly among independents, that is not a good sign for the general election, given that his electability argument rests in considerable part on his presumed superior ability to attract independents.
And by the way, thank you for taking my comments seriously, and examining evidence that could support my position, instead of summarily dismissing it all as Clintonista concern trolling.
Sorry it didn’t register with me the first time round. There’s been so much to think about lately.
I’m wondering if that drop might actually be some kind of artifact in the wake of Super Tuesday (which was March 1st), reflecting the idea that Sanders was now all washed up. Which has since proved not to be the case.
Could be. We’ll just have to watch how things unfold from here.
Regardless of who turns out to be the Dem nom, I’ll be wholeheartedly supporting our side in the general. I just hope the more impassioned partisans on both sides will do the same, given the prospect of either Trump or Cruz with the nuclear launch codes.
Janicket, You know what I’ve picked up in conversations about HRC? Try this: “If her lips are moving, she’s lying.”
This! Everytime! Not one conversation about HRC that doesn’t end up with the descriptive, LIER!
As I said elsewhere in this thread, I think his ranting on M&B™ is misplaced. It’s a problem, but it’s not the reason why the GOP has wrecked the government and is trying to take social legislation back to the 1850s.
A Democratic candidate that can’t win a majority of the AA vote is flawed. They’re a hugely important set of voters.
Bernie has said very little about how horrible the GOP has been this campaign. It’s all been about M&B, corrupt campaign finance, a political revolution™ that will solve all our problems. He said himself that his success depends on millions of new voters turning out. He hasn’t expanded the set of Democratic voters (he’s taken a big part of certain demographics, but he hasn’t made the pie bigger). By his own metrics, his campaign has not been a success.
I think Bernie’s right to talk about how the top 1% has taken too much of the national income over the past 30 years. But he has said nothing about how he would fix that problem other than his political revolution™ Any changes will have to be incremental (because that’s the way it always works in the US), and he only talks about maximalist solutions that have no chance of being implemented. He has proposed things (like a tax on everyone to pay for Medicare for all) that the party does not support (Nancy said it would be DOA). He has proposed having yet another huge battle over health care when what is needed is tweaking the problems with the PPACA rather than throwing it out in favor of M4A (which sounds great in the abstract but has huge practical issues that need to be addressed – like cost containment, the fact that Medicare doesn’t pay for everything, etc.).
Bernie is a flawed messenger.
My $0.02.
Cheers,
Scott.
You know why he hasn’t said how horrible the Republicans are?
Because he wants to get as many Republicans and independents as possible to vote for him. He understands that he can appeal to a lot of working-class voters who deludely think Trump is the answer. And he explains to them why he is a better alternative.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/why-sanders-holds-potential-appeal-trump-voters
You say he hasn’t expanded the set of Democratic voters. Then how do you explain the huge percentage of first-time voters for Sanders and the fact that big turnouts are in his favor? Obviously a lot of people are voting for Hillary, but that’s kind of what happens in primaries.
Without getting into the details, Bernie’s message is essentially “Yes we can”, while Hillary’s is “No we can’t.” A lot of people in this country are hurting, and they understand that Bernie is listening to them.
“But he has said nothing about how he would fix that problem”… and yet:
https:/berniesanders.com/issues/income-and-wealth-inequality
https:/berniesanders.com/issues/how-bernie-pays-for-his-proposals
“He hasn’t expanded the set of Democratic voters”… and yet:
“Vermont U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders scored a stunning victory over Hillary Clinton in Hawaii Democrats’ presidential preference poll Saturday, mobilizing a grass-roots campaign that signed up thousands of new Democrats and defied the wishes of almost the entire “old guard” of the party.”
Every other rich country in the world has figured how to provide healthcare for their citizens – what the heck is our problem? The basic answer is our government no longer works for us – so who cares what Nancy has to say?
And when Sanders positions on many topics that are supported by an overwhelming majority of Americans are called “radical” – it is obvious our media is not working for us either – so who cares what they predict?
Bernie may be a flawed messenger but for many of us fed up with what corporations have done to America he is the only messenger.
Sorry, no time for a point-by-point rebuttal, but consider this:
Yes, the US spends ~ 50% more per-capita for healthcare than many other nations do, and often with worse outcomes.
Now, what is Bernie, or anyone, going to do about it? You think physicians and surgeons are going to accept a 50% cut in pay? You think drug companies, and the people who work for them and the people who live on their investment income from their S&P500 mutual fund are going to accept a 50% cut in revenue? You think that there’s some magic “WasteFraudandAbuse” bucket of money that has that 50% extra that we’re spending?
The only way to get medical costs under control so that healthcare is universal is through long-term incremental changes. Nobody with any political power is going to accept a sudden 50% cut in their income. Pie in the sky promises of a quick transition to Medicare for All is a guaranteed way to get millions of middle-class people who get their insurance at work and who see how many issues grandpa has with Medicare upset and will make the battle over PPACA look like the Grenada invasion, too. Medicare doesn’t cover a lot of stuff. Medicare only pays 80% of some bills so people need supplemental insurance. Is Bernie going to make everyone buy supplemental insurance on top of Medicare, or is Medicare going to cover everything now? If it covers everything and every drug, how is the cost going to be kept under control?
Yes, if we were starting over, some sort of truly universal healthcare system (which doesn’t have to be single-payer) makes a lot of sense. The question is, how do we get there from here. There are millions of people who have decent health care who are very afraid of change. Demonizing the millionaires and billionaires™ doesn’t address their concerns.
These are complicated problems. Bernie dismissing the complications and nuance doesn’t help him make his case, IMHO.
YMMV.
Cheers,
Scott.
It does not have to be Medicare for All – I think expanding to the Swiss system would be a good start for the US. Perhaps you would see that as tweaking of the ACA – if so then we’re not as far apart as it seems.
As for this question: how is the cost going to be kept under control?
It starts with the premise that people’s health should not be profitized. Making money off someone’s sickness is perverted. Healthcare does not belong in a free market.
Because if healthcare professionals are successful the result should be fewer patients/customers. Or as Donald Berwick put it: “The best hospital bed is an empty one.”
Once that becomes a goal, you can incentivize value and cost savings over profit. And the possibilities in this area abound.
By worrying about the complications you miss the bigger argument that needs to be made before you can even start tackling the problem. Is it easy? No but it’s not impossible either.
I could go on but I’d like to be respectful of your time.
here, I don’t actually think it’s safe to say that “we all agree that defeating the Republicans is the most important thing.”
Even though I certainly agree with that sentiment, at least for the near term (i.e., this election).
I think we all here will when we get to it; for me it’s just too early to have that discussion because I want the primary to play out first
Again…what happens if Hillary has to drop out? For physical or legal reasons.
Could happen…
AG
Hello everyone at the Frog Pond! I have been a “lurker” on this site for many years. The phrase,”although it does little to change the race, which is already nearly put to bed.” along with others written by Booman during this primary prompted me to register. I don’t think I am at the same level of wordplay & composing of text as you all are. I am really nervous about posting a comment,but here we go. Booman,I’m with Bob in Portland & Marie3. I understand that you want to deal in reality, but everyone needs some hope & you seem to step on the hope that Bernie’s supporters have at every opportunity. I personally don’t need your concern trolling for my, as you describe , “warrantless euphoria”. I’m a big girl & I can handle losing without being crushed emotionally. What I will not take without comment is the constant negative propaganda I keep reading at supposedly progressive sites! My experience as a “lurker” leads me to believe that you must really dislike Bernie and do support Hillary even though you describe them both as “miserable” candidates today. AG requests you should take a stand. It looks like to me that you already have even though you say you are not fighting for anyone this primary. Why is that? Could it be that you can’t find any hope to believe in during this primary season? Could it be that some part of your belief system has been crushed by your “reality” in some way? I prefer to work towards making what I have hope in become reality. I prefer to believe that when Americans come together, We Can Do Anything! After all, American ends in I Can! Believing in reality does not preclude having hope that reality can change! Just my .02. Thank you.
Thanks for your comment. We’ve got your back.
Thank You!(:
Welcome! I too was nervous about posting my first blog comment years ago. It takes a bit of practice and almost none of us are as quick and articulate as someone like Billmon. Reality, particularly in politics, isn’t a thing that exists somewhere out there and is independent of people. We need more voices like yours to be heard to counter the manufactured “reality” of those with large megaphones that have been distorting the worldview of the public to the detriment of “the people.”
Thank you! (: “the people” can do whatever they set their mind & will to. “reality” can be changed. A little hope can facilitate that change.
Definitely a needed contribution to the discussion. Thanks for commenting.
Thank You! (:
Thanks for jumping into the Frog Pond and getting your feet wet. I look forward to more of your comments.
Thank You! (:
Here’s a late-in-the-game question. The ‘winner take all’ states vs proportional really came to the fore on the west coast voting Saturday. If the states were not proportional in allocating delegates but had been winner take all, or even a 50% becomes winner takes all, look what would have happened to Sanders’ count.
And if a candidate aligns with the winner take all states’ voting preferences is there not an inherent advantage for a candidate that aligns early on with those states’ platforms?
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/D-Del.phtml
The GOP has the Winner Take All stuff (that was put in place to try to help JEB? win) – the Democrats don’t.
At least that’s my understanding base on the table above.
Cheers,
Scott.
You know what I’m thinking, after searching the internets to find a positive story about Sanders sweeping last night?
I’m pretty sure that the Democratic Party is more dysfunctional than the Republicans. At least the Repubs have fear and hate on their side, and that trumps (ugh) indifference.
I’m thinking that either a new party, maybe an “independent democratic” party, or some other such thing, needs to be created. Time to get a party that represents the bottom 80%. Either that or a mass migration to the Green Party. I think that something with “independent” in the name will play better than Green. After all, we know that Bernie kills it with independents and Hillary doesn’t.
Just what the Clintonistas didn’t want to happen is happening. The samo samo isn’t working for most of us. No coronation, but with more and more stories surfacing about political dirty tricks on Clinton’s part, maybe a coup of sorts.
I think Clinton’s sweeps in the South are more to do with party loyalty (or loyalty to the party machinery) than anyone actually loving Clinton. When John Lewis made his infamous remark about not seeing Sanders in the sixties it was devastating for his own reputation. My first reaction was, “Okay, they bought him too.” I actually was there in the sixties and Lewis probably never saw me either. But it’s a big country. What kind of schmuck do you have to be to denigrate someone who’s had a lifetime fighting for civil rights? And how do you think you’ll get away with such a remark if there are plenty of pictures of Sanders getting arrested as a civil rights demonstrator? Maybe you can down South. Not everywhere.
In a sense, these Democratic races have been fixed in the sense that in order to be recognized as a candidate you have to have an insider status. Obama was a faux outsider, and a lot of people voted for him because a) he didn’t look like an insider, and b) when the general rolled around who wanted to vote for McCain? This is the canary in the coal mine.
I don’t see it happening that way, but you’re right that the Democratic Party needs to be made over, and Hillary is the legacy candidate for a lot of what’s wrong with about it.
Bernie and his political allies (many of whom I think are still in deep cover) will be the vanguard of change in the party. But it won’t be easy. That’s why this campaign is only the beginning.
I agree. Independent Democratic Party sounds pretty good. A new party will be called for if Bernie is not the Democratic nominee.(If the coup is successful.) The current Democratic party & it’s supporters underestimate the numbers of voters with the unchangible conviction that; They Absolutely Will Not Vote For Hillary. That does not mean they will not vote however. An enormous amount of the frogs in the pot called the United States today are past fed up with the slow boil that’s killing them. They are ready to make it all come crashing down, so that there might be a chance it could be rebuilt in a more equitable way. These frogs/voters are done with being “rational” & picking the “lesser of two evils”. They see no upside to accepting the half loaf they are advised to accept anymore. They are not political junkies. They don’t have the time or energy to be as informed as we are.(They are busy with trying to keep their jobs, take care of their loved ones & maybe squeeze in some pursuit of happiness in their lives.) They see no positive difference in their lives & circumstances in following the rules of thoughtful citizenship anymore. Canary in the coal mine. Absolutely.
I hope you are right.
Thank you.
AG
Yes.
Thank you.
An attempt at ending the centrist fix needs to be made.
From the left.
Now or later, but sometime soon!!!
AG